Posts by Cassius

Quote from Don

His primary mission in this was to contend against rival theories of his day. He wasn't trying to establish the Standard Model of quarks, gluons, mesons we have today. He'd be intrigued by this maybe, but I don't think he'd change his system. His system was adequate for his purposes. So when people slight him or try to dismiss him or try to shoehorn atomoi into the modern Standard Model, they all miss some part of the point.

Yes I think this is a very key point. Most of us here are acclimated and fine with pointing out that Epicurus' "atom" was simply meant to be whatever is uncuttable, indivisible, etc., and we're not dismayed when we think about molecules, atoms, electrons, and further and further down. Epicurus wasn't concerned with the intermediate steps - he was making an ultimate logical point that at some point there "must" be something that is uncuttable and unchangeable in order to hold things together and provide the continuity that we observe. He would adjust his terminology, but probably not adjust his ultimate point against infinite indivisibility.

That's really the whole point of the argument against infinite indivisibility, and something very similar seems to me to apply to eternality and infinity as well. I think Epicurus would look at the latest observations and be intrigued by the clues it gives as to the intermediate steps, but it would not at all necessarily change his ultimate position on those points.

Obviously there are many points of his observations on lesser issues that would need to be drastically revised, at least in terms of terminology.

But to say flatly "Epicurean science was wrong. It has been superseded by modern science." Is in my view WAY overbroad. Parts have been superseded, parts have stood the test of time, as far as I can tell. But the biggest and most important assertions in the nature of things -- eternality of the universe, infinity of the universe, and the absence of infinite indivisibility - so far as I can tell do not need to be abandoned, and still stand as important parts of his system of thought.

And that is where your "adequate for his purposes" comes in. Some people don't think it's necessary to take a position on whether the universe had a beginning; whether there is an "end" to the universe in space, or whether it is possible to keep on dividing things "forever." I think we probably have more people today who are ok with that than ever before. But I don't think we should ignore people who want a "best" answer to those questions that is consistent with a non-supernatural universe and which gives them something understandable to base their thoughts on. Such a system gives them a coherent response in their minds to those who would argue that there IS no stability of any kind in the universe, and that the universe might pop out of existence at any moment just like they say it popped in. (I note that these positions serve much the same function as the initial principle doctrines, which are ultimately logical positions which are relatively easy to understand and therefore inoculate us against all sorts of damaging errors.) All I can say is that for myself I think these big picture issues are legitimate questions, and Epicurus's answers are very legitimate responses, and that they have not outlived their usefulness for literally millions of people.

So in my view there is both a "logical" and a "practical" reason to not be overbroad in characterizing Epicurean physics. We should always be clear BOTH that some aspects have been superseded, while some has not, and that the study of the entire system is worthwhile for the benefit in brings in explaining a rational perspective on the interplay between observation and having a system of thought that allows us to live successfully.

So to finish on your key sentence: " He'd be intrigued by this maybe, but I don't think he'd change his system" I know from years of discussing Epicurus on the internet that some people just go ballistic at a sentence like that. The group of people who react that way is similar to, but not the same, as those who run for the hills when they hear the word "dogmatism." I don't know any way to deal with that but to repeat over and over something like:

"Yes, observation must always control, and that which is clearly and repeatedly observed over time must be incorporated into the system by revising the system as needed. But the fact that new observations can and will forever come in does not change our need for a system today by which to live our lives. Every one of us as we live our lives has to form judgments about what to have confidence in and what not to have confidence in. Some of the specifics of what Epicurus taught require considerable revision, but many of the major key points of the overall system which provide an understandable overview of the non-supernatural universe - such as eternality in time, infinity in space, absence of a center, absence of infinite indivisibility - still provide an intellectually viable way of seeing our place in the universe. And don't forget that error lies in the mind, not in observation, so the simple existence of an observation does not in and of itself give us an accurate understanding of what that observation means. It is the role of philosophy to guide us in the best rules for processing observation into a coherent system, and the perspective of Epicurus on how to apply both philosophy and observation to science is very worth of consideration even today."

Episode Fifty-Two of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In today's episode, we continue the discussion of images with more on light, vision, and reflections. As always we invite your comments and suggestions.

I can't remember that I saw that -- thank you!

This is a thread to discuss general issues as to how modern-day Epicureans should think today about Epicurus' views on the age and size of the universe. The same questions arise as to infinite divisibility, whether the universe has a center, and other issues as well, but probably it would be best to focus on Epicurus' views on the eternality and infinity of the universe as presenting the clearest field for debate.

If you check Wikipedia under "Age of the Universe" you will find the answer defined in terms of "the time elapsed since the Big Bang." which is listed at being somewhere around 14 billion years. Wikipedia further states that the "steady-state model" is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the steady-state model does not predict.

As to the size of the universe, wikipedia is less harsh on the Epicurean position, restricting its position to the "observable universe:"

Because we cannot observe space beyond the edge of the observable universe, it is unknown whether the size of the universe in its totality is finite or infinite.^[3][57][58] Estimates suggest that the whole universe, if finite, must be more than 250 times larger than the observable universe.^[59] Some disputed^[60] estimates for the total size of the universe, if finite, reach as high as ______ as implied by a suggested resolution of the No-Boundary Proposal.^[61][b]

How do we approach talking about these issues in an Epicurean context? Most of us (certainly including me) are not astrophysicists, and we don't have any direct evidence other than our own personal observations of life here on Earth and what we can see into the sky. Based on simple human observations that here on earth nothing comes from nothing and nothing goes to nothing, Epicurus erected a chain argument that ultimately in its widest sense the universe must be eternal in time and infinite in size in order for what we see here on Earth to make sense.

Most ordinary people do not have training in astrophysics, and if they are going to take the analysis beyond Epicurus' chain reasoning they will have to decide what they are going to believe based on testimony of "experts" who tell us that they have data and analysis that leads them in a particular direction. It probably isn't necessary to point out, however, that not all experts always agree, and that even when a majority agree on a particular position, "majorities of experts" in human history have regularly been wrong on any number of positions. Yet on the other hand, majorities of experts are frequently correct, and we have a wonderful world of technology and science that is built on foundations of scientific consensus that have proven to be very reliable.

Before we go further it's worth pointing out that Epicurus' method of reasoning was to first make observations of the evidence that is available to us here on earth, and then on the basis of analogy attempt to deduce conclusions on matters for which we lack the ability to get up close to make direct observation. This is the case not only in astronomy but also in terms of the atom - no one in Epicurus' time ever observed an "atom" directly, and even what we call "atoms" today (which are divisible, and thus not strictly what Epicurus was referring to) are difficult to observe directly. Nevertheless Epicurus made many insightful observations about the nature of atoms by drawing inferences based on analogy with things that could be soon.

Epicurus also recognized the limits of reasoning by analogy, and he affirmed especially in relation to the study of the stars that we regularly do not have enough evidence to select only one theory from among the many theories that can seem possible based on the evidence, and in such cases the only responsible course is to admit that the various possibilities which the evidence does not contradict could in fact be true, and not attempt to select among them.

So how do we approach the issues of infinity and eternality?

As to eternality, as I see it we do have evidence indicating that the universe is eternal, just as Epicurus reasoned. For every day of my life, and to the best of my credible reading every day of every other human's life in the past, nothing has ever been seen to go to nothing, and nothing has ever been seen to come from nothing. To me that is strong evidence that the rule of nothing from nothing and nothing to nothing is correct, and I have no reason to suspect that it is not correct throughout the universe. I therefore would not admit that we have no evidence for the conclusion that the universe as a whole is eternal.l

In the face of this, a certain number, and perhaps a strong majority, of professional physicists have accumulated some very interesting data about the nature of the universe. One thing I observe about those physicists is that they do not seem to agree among themselves about the interpretation of that data. We can pretty easily google and come up with links that reference scientists who do continue to hold that the data indicates that the universe as a whole is eternal in time. It appears that everyone's data, however tends to point to a "big bang" that occurred in at least one area of the total universe about 14 billion years ago. As I see it, that does not cause me a bit of concern, because the scientists appear to me to admit that they are talking about only the "observable" universe, and so the observation that in one segment of the universe the matter expanded or exploded from a smaller mass would in no way violate the rule of nothing from nothing nothing to nothing which all of human sensation has otherwise indicated to be true. There seems to be no reason to argue that that mass came from nowhere, and the observable universe limitation means that the rest of the universe is not even being addressed, so accepting a "big bang" in our corner of the universe is entirely consistent with the universe as a whole continuing on from eternity, perhaps with an unending series of expansions and contractions throughout the entire whole.

The suggestion seems to be made, however, that "the universe as a whole" might have come from nothing, or that "we don't know" is an acceptable resting point for the analysis. Either contention leads to a confrontation between the observations I myself have made, plus what seems to be reliable evidence of all humans who have ever lived in the past against a contention made by specific experts on the basis of very complicated calculations and observations that are disputed by members of their own field. When I consider the caveats that the experts use like referring to the "observable universe," it seems to me to be very reasonable to consider that the observations made by the latest technology may be explainable by other means without the need to throw out the eternal universe starting point. So based on this analysis it seems to me this situation is far from being conclusive enough to simply say "Epicurus was wrong about the universe being eternal."

As part of the analysis of the competing viewpoints, I would then want to examine the credibility of each of those who make these assertions, including examining what agendas and philosophical and religious views those experts bring to the table, to see if their conclusions appear to have been influenced by those factors. It's my experience, and I gather the experience of humanity, that very rare is the person who is totally objective and even-handed in their conclusions.

All of which leads me back to the question of how we live today and talk about our own viewpoints. My tentative formulation of the issue is to say something like "Scientists disagree but Epicurus held that the universe was eternal, this is why he held that position, and everyone should make up their own mind about what they think and how they want to apply the conclusions in their own lives.

It's my view, and I think good Epicurean theory, that our personal goal of happy living and peace of mind requires that we have a coherent understanding of the nature of the universe as natural and not subject to the whim of supernatural gods or other uncertainties that we can't evaluate and consider in our planning of our lives. Maintaining that outlook on life, while also acknowledging that new evidence is constantly coming our way and has to be incorporated into our viewpoints,. is more important that my taking a position to affirm or disagree with a particular expert whose statements contradict what I observe for myself. I am thinking that the proper approach is to politely acknowledge the disagreement and move on with my life -- always open to new evidence, of course, but not worrying that bedrock principles such as "nothing from nothing" or their logical extensions are likely to be undermined. And if someone suggestions that those bedrock principles have been undermined, or totally overthrown, I would expect clear and convincing evidence before I accepted it.

In court, to my understanding, we have an analogous issue. In cases where technical expertise is beyond the capacity of ordinary jurors, the American legal system allows lawyers to call expert witnesses to testify. Before those experts are allowed to give opinion testimony, however, they must be "qualified" to the court by the process of each side asking questions of the expert to determine their background, training, standing in the profession, and similar issues that bear on credibility. It is then the judge who decides whether the expert should be allowed to give opinion testimony, but importantly the jury is not required to believe the expert. The American legal system allows the layperson jurors to accept or reject all or part of the opinion testimony, and this is especially important to realize given what is generally the case: that both sides of an argument call their own experts, each of whom gives conflicting opinions about the ultimate question. Observing that the American trial court system operates in this way does not prove anything, but it seems to me to be a very reasonable way to proceed - to acknowledge that experts can be very helpful but should never be allowed to usurp the weighing and credibility functions of a judge or jury -- the same functions which our own minds have to perform in making the most important decisions of life.

I realize that I have spent most of this post talking about eternality, and hardly mentioned infinity in space or infinite divisibility. Epicurus considered both of these additional issues to be important to a coherent philosophy, but I won't try to extend this post by citing arguments on these issues. I'll just say that the wikipedia article on size of the universe seems to be much less helpful in supporting anyone who would say "Epicurus was wrong" on these issues. I am sure there is other and better evidence than wikipedia on these issues and we can use this or other threads to explore those questions.

All of this takes us back to questions of teamwork and cooperation and forum moderation which go along with building an Epicurean community. It causes me no concern to include in Epicurean discussions the argument that modern physics contradicts the "nothing from nothing" principle, because it's also a core Epicurean value that if there is new evidence on a subject then than new evidence needs to be incorporated into the conclusions made about that subject. I wouldn't take the position that nothing from nothing / eternal universe has to be accepted by everyone who claims to be an Epicurean, but in reverse, my view would be that the "eternal universe" theory deserves continued consideration within ongoing Epicurean discussion.

In conclusion, I wouldn't think anyone but each of us ourselves should be overly concerned with our own personal positions, so I think most of what we want to discuss as participants in this forum is a matter of "moderation" issues going forward. These issues will come up over and over so no doubt the basic positions on all sides will require constant repetition. But in terms of deciding how to describe a general attitude toward the entire subject, I am thinking that the general attitude could be summarized as something like "the evidence has been developed a lot since Epicurus' day, but that there is still a lot to be learned from Epicurus' approach and conclusions, and everyone has to decide for themselves what conclusions to accept and what conclusions to reject."

All comments and opinions are welcome and would be helpful in sorting through these issues.

Welcome to Episode Fifty-Three of Lucretius Today. I am your host Cassius, and together with my panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the six books of Lucretius' poem, and discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. Be aware that none of us are professional philosophers, and everyone here is a self-taught Epicurean. 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.

For anyone who is not familiar with our podcast, please check back to Episode One for a discussion of our goals and our ground rules. If you have any question about that, please be sure to contact us at Epicureanfriends.com for more information.

In today's podcast we will discuss how mistaken judgments caused by illusions should not be considered to be the fault of the senses, but of the mind. Our text will be from Latin Lines: 324- 468. Now let's join Martin reading today's text.

Munro Notes:

321-378: this theory of images will explain many other things : you cannot gaze on the sun, because of the force with which images come from it., and the seeds of fire mixed in them : the jaundiced see all things of a greenish yellow, because of the atoms of this colour which proceed from them and meet the images : we see out of the dark things in the light, because a bright clear air, advancing before the images of things in the light, purges the eye of the gross air of darkness, the former air being much more minute and penetrating than the latter: we cannot see what is in the dark, because the gross air comes behind the bright and blocks up the sight against all images: a square tower from a distance looks round, because the images are blunted in their long journey through the air: our shadow seems to follow us and move as we do, because it is really nothing but air without light: one part of the earth after another being shaded from the sun as we advance, and the parts before covered by us left exposed as we leave them.

379-468: in all this the eyes are not deceived; what they see, they rightly see; it is the mind that errs in the inferences it draws : this applies to thousands of things in which the senses seem to be mistaken; when we are in a ship which is moving, it seems to be at rest, and things which it passes to be in motion; the stars which are in perpetual movement, appear to stand still; if you look clown a long colonnade, the roof and floor and the sides seem at the other end to converge to a point; out at sea the sun appears to rise from the water and to set in it; the parts of a ship under water look bent and twisted upwards; when clouds scud across the sky, the stars seem to move the other way; if you press the eyeball beneath, you see all things double; when fast asleep in a small room in the dark, you often think you see daylight and are travelling over wide distances: in all this the error lies in the opinions which the mind superinduces upon what the senses really perceive.

Browne 1743

The eyes, you observe, fly and avoid a glaring object; the sun likewise blinds you if you look too intensely against it, because its force is great, and its images are discharged from above through the pure air, and strike violently upon the eyes, and disturb and loosen their contexture; besides, a brightness too powerful for the sight often burns the eye, because it contains many seeds of fire, which piercing the ball, give it sensible pain. And then, whatever a person looks upon that has the yellow jaundice becomes pale and lurid; because many lurid seeds flow from such a body, and meet with the images of things as they advance. And further, there are many seeds within the eyes of one so distempered which stain all things with their infection and make them look pale. Again, if we are placed in the dark, we see objects that are in the light, because when the dark air, which is nearer, first enters and takes possession of the open eyes, the bright clear air immediately follows, which as it were purges the eye and dissipates the darkness the dusky air has infused into it; for this lucid air is by many degrees more apt to move, is more subtle, and has more force. This, as soon as it has filled the passages of the eyes with light, and opened those pores that the dark air has stopped before, the images of things conveyed in the light immediately follow, and strike upon the eye, and move the sight. But if we are placed in the light, we cannot discover objects in the dark, because a train of dark and thicker air follows the bright, which is nearest the eye, and stops up all the pores, and so chokes up the passages of the sight that the images of things cannot be moved or received into it.

Further, when we see the square towers of a city at a distance they commonly appear round to us, because all angles, seen far off, show obtuse, or rather they do not show at all. Their strokes die away, and the blows never reach our eyes, for, as the images are carried through a long tract of air, the air beats upon them continually in their passage, and so wears off their corners. Hence it is that since no manner of angle strikes the eye the stony fabric appears of a circular figure; yet the roundness is not so distinct as if the object itself were really round and seen at a small distance, but it bears a kind of resemblance to such a figure, yet is not completely so. Our shadows seem to move with us in the sun, to follow our steps, and imitate our gestures (if you can suppose that air, void of light, is able to walk, and to follow the motions and gestures of the body; for what we usually call shadow can be nothing but the air deprived of light). The reason is because as we walk we hinder the rays of the sun from striking upon a certain part of the earth, which by that means becomes dark; but that as we leave the place it is covered with light, and therefore it is that the shadow of the body over against it follows us in all our motions. For a train of new rays are continually flowing from the sun; and the first dies away like thread of wool drawn through a flame, and by this means that part of the earth is soon deprived of light, and again becomes bright, and discharges the black shade that hung upon it.

But in this case we are not in the least to allow that the eyes are deceived; it is their business to discover only where the light and shade are, but to determine nothing whether the light be the same, or the shadow be the same that moves from one place to another, or whether it be as we explained above. It is the office of the mind and judgment to distinguish this, for the eyes can know nothing of the nature of things, and therefore you are not to impute to them the failures of the mind. When we are on ship-board, the vessel drives on when it seems to stand still, and when it lies at anchor it seems to move; the hills and plains seem to fly and retire from us as we row, or scour with full sails before the wind. And thus all the stars seem fixed in the vaulted sky, when they are all in continual motion: they rise, and when they have measured the heavens with their bright orbs, they set again at an immense distance. The sun and moon, by the same rule, appear fixed, when experience tells us that they move. And mountains, standing at a distance from one another in the middle of the sea, so that a fleet of ships may sail easily between them, appear like one continued ridge of rocks, and though widely separated, yet show like one vast island, formed by all of them joined together. So boys, when they have made themselves giddy, so strongly fancy that the walls are turned about, and the pillars run round, that even when they stand still, they can scarce believe but that the whole house threatens to tumble upon their heads.

Thus, when nature begins to display the bright splendor of the sun with trembling light, and to raise it above the top of the mountains, that hill over which the sun just appears, and glowing seems to scorch with his beams, is scarce two thousand bow-shot distant from us, perhaps not five hundred casts of a dart; when yet, between that and the sun lie many mighty seas, spread under a vast expansion of the heavens; many thousand leagues of land lie between, possessed by many nations, and the whole race of wild beasts. So a puddle of water, no deeper than one of your fingers, that lies in the street between the stones, affords a prospect so deep under the earth as the distance between the earth and the wide arch of heaven, so that you seem to look down upon the clouds to take a clear survey of the sky and view with wonder the celestial bodies contained in it, as they seem beneath the earth. Observe, when your mettled horse stands still with you in the middle of a river, and you look down upon the rapid stream of the water, the force of the current seems to drive your horse violently upwards, and hurry you swiftly against the tide; and on which side soever you cast your eyes, all things seem to be borne along, and carried against the current in the same manner.

A long portico, though it be of equal breadth from one end to the other, and reaches far, supported by pillars of equal height, yet when you stand at one end to take a view of its whole extent, it contracts itself by degrees to a narrow point at the further end; the roof touches the floor, and both sides seem to meet, 'til it terminates at last in the sharp figure of a dark cone. The sun, to Mariners, seems to rise out of the sea, and there again to set and hide his light; for they see nothing but the water and the sky; but therefore you are not to conclude rashly that the senses are at all deceived. To those who know nothing of the sea, a ship in the port seems disabled, and to strive against the waves with broken oars; for that part of the oar and of the rudder that is above the water appears straight, but all below, being refracted, seems to be turned upwards, and to be bent towards the top of the water, and to float almost upon the surface of it. So when the winds drive the light clouds along the sky in the night, the moon and stars seem to fly against the clouds, and to be driven above them in a course quite opposite to that in which they naturally move. And if you chance to press with your fingers under one of your eyes, the effect will be that every thing you look upon will appear double, every bright candle will burn with two flames, and all the furniture of the house will multiply and show double; every face about you, and every body, will look like two. Lastly, when sleep has bound our limbs in sweet repose, and all the body lies dissolved in rest, we think ourselves awake; our members move, and in the gloomy darkness of the night we think we see the sun in broad day-light, and, though confined in bed, we wander over the heavens, the sea, the rivers, and the hills, and fancy we are walking through the plains. And sounds we seem to hear; and, though the tongue be still, we seem to speak, when the deep silence of night reigns all about us. Many more things of this kind we observe and wonder at, which attempt to overthrow the certainty of our senses, but to no purpose - for things of this sort generally deceive us upon account of the judgment of the mind which we apply to them, and so we conclude we see things which we really do not; for nothing is more difficult than to distinguish things clear and plain from such as are doubtful, to which the mind is ready to add its assent, as it is inclined to believe everything imparted by the senses.

Munro

Bright things again the eyes eschew and shun to look upon: the sun even blinds them, if you persist in turning them towards it, because its power is great and idols are borne through the clear air with great downward force from on high, and strike the eyes, and disorder their fastenings. Moreover any vivid brightness often bums the eyes, because it contains many seeds of fire which make a way in and beget pain in the eyes. Again whatever the jaundiced look at becomes a greenish-yellow, because many seeds of greenish-yellow stream from their body and meet the idols of things, and many too are mixed up in their eyes, and these by their infection tinge all things with sallow hues. Again we see out of the dark things which are in the light for this reason: when the black air of darkness being the nearer has first entered and taken possession of the open eyes, the bright white air follows straightway after and cleanses them so to say and dispels the black shadows of the other air; for this is a great deal more nimble, a great deal more subtle and more efficacious. As soon as it has filled with light and opened up the passages of the eyes which the black air had before blocked up, forthwith the idols of things which are situated in the light follow and excite them so that we see. This we cannot do conversely in the dark out of the light, because the grosser air of darkness follows behind and quite fills all the openings and blocks up the passages of the eyes, not letting the idols of any things at all be thrown into the eyes to move them.

Again when we descry far off the square towers of a town, they often appear to be round for this reason: all the angles are seen from a distance to look obtuse, or rather are not seen at all, and their blow is lost and their stroke never makes its way to our sight, because while the idols are borne on through much air, the air by repeated collisions blunts the stroke perforce. When in this way all the angles have together eluded the sense, the stone structures are rounded off as if by the lathe; yet they do not look like the things which are close before us and really round, but somewhat resembling them as in shadowy outline. Our shadow likewise seems to move in the sunshine and to follow our steps and mimic our action; if you think forsooth that air deprived of life can step, imitating the motions and the actions of men; for that which we are wont to term shadow can be nothing but air devoid of light. Sure enough, because the earth in certain spots successively is deprived of light wherever we intercept it in moving about, while that part of it which we have quitted is filled with light, therefore that which was the shadow of our body, seems to have always followed us unchanged in a direct line with us. For new rays of light ever pour in and the old are lost, just as if wool were drawn into the fire. Therefore the earth is readily stripped of light, and again filled, and cleanses itself from black shadows.

And yet in all this we do not admit that the eyes are cheated one whit, for it is their province to observe in what spot soever light and shade are; but whether the lights are still the same or not, and whether it is the same shadow which was in this spot that is now passing to that, or whether what we said a little before is not rather the fact, this the reason of the mind, and only it, has to determine; nor can the eyes know the nature of things. Do not then fasten upon the eyes this frailty of the mind. The ship in which we are sailing moves on while seeming to stand still; that one which remains at its moorings is believed to be passing by. The hills and fields seem to be dropping astern, past which we are driving our ship and flying under sail. The stars all seem to be at rest fast fixed to the ethereal vaults, and yet are all in constant motion, since they rise and then go back to their far-off places of setting after they have traversed the length of heaven with their bright bodies. In like manner sun and moon seem to stay in one place, bodies which simple fact proves are carried on. And though between mountains rising up afar off from amid the waters there opens out for fleets a free passage of wide extent, yet a single island seems to be formed out of them united into one. When children have stopped turning round themselves, the halls appear to them to whirl about and the pillars to course round to such a degree, that they can scarce believe that the whole roof is not threatening to tumble down upon them.

Again when nature begins to raise on high the sun’s beam ruddy with bickering fires and to lift it up above the mountains, those hills above which the sun then seems to you to be, as blazing close at hand he dyes them with his own fire, are distant from us scarce two thousand arrow-flights, yea often scarce five hundred casts of a javelin; and yet between them and the sun lie immense levels of sea, spread out below the huge borders of ether, and many thousands of lands are between, held by divers peoples and races of wild beasts. Then a puddle of water not more than a finger-breadth deep, which stands between the stones in the streets, offers a prospect beneath the earth of a reach as vast, as that with which the high yawning maw of heaven opens out above the earth; so that you seem to discern clouds and see the bodies of birds far withdrawn into that wondrous sky beneath the earth. Again when our stout horse has stuck in the middle of a river and we have looked down on the swift waters of the stream, some force seems to carry athwart the current the body of the horse which is standing still and to force it rapidly up the stream; and to whatever point we cast our eyes about, all things seem to be carried on and to be flowing in the same way as we are.

Again although a portico runs in parallel lines from one end to the other and stands supported by equal columns along its whole extent, yet when, from the top of it, it is seen in its entire length, it gradually forms the contracted top of a narrowing cone, until uniting roof with floor and all the right side with the left it has brought them together into the vanishing point of a cone. To sailors on the sea the sun appears to rise out of the waters and in the waters to set and bury his light; just because they behold nothing but water and sky; that you may not lightly suppose the credit of the senses to be shaken on all hands. Then to people unacquainted with the sea ships in harbor seem to be all askew and with poop fittings broken to be pressing up against the water. For whatever part of the oars is raised above the saltwater is straight, and the rudders in their upper half are straight: the parts which are sunk below the water-level appear to be broken and bent round and to slope up and turn back towards the surface and to be so much twisted back as well nigh to float on the top of the water. And when the winds carry the thinly scattered clouds across heaven in the night time, then do the glittering signs appear to glide athwart the rack and to be traveling on high in a direction quite different to their real course. Then if our hand chance to be placed beneath one eye and press it below, through a certain sensation all things which we look at appear then to become double as we look; the light of lamps brilliant with flames to be double, double too the furniture through the whole house, double men’s faces and men’s bodies. Again when sleep has chained down our limbs in sweet slumber and the whole body is sunk in profound repose, yet then we seem to ourselves to be awake and to be moving our limbs, and mid the thick darkness of night we think we see the sun and the daylight; and though in a confined room, we seem to be passing to new climates seas rivers and mountains and to be crossing plains on foot and to hear noises, though the austere silence of night prevails all round, and to be uttering speech though quite silent. Many are the other marvels of this sort we see, which all seek to shake as it were the credit of the senses: quite in vain, since the greatest part of these cases cheats us on account of the mental suppositions which we add of ourselves, taking those things as seen which have not been seen by the senses. For nothing is harder than to separate manifest facts from doubtful which straightway the mind adds on of itself.

Bailey

Bright things moreover the eyes avoid, and shun to look upon. The sun, too, blinds, if you try to raise your eyes to meet him, because his own power is great, and the idols from him are borne through the clear air, sinking heavily into the deep, and strike upon the eyes, disordering their texture. Moreover, any piercing brightness often burns the eyes for the reason that it contains many seeds of fire, which give birth to pain in the eyes, finding their way in. Moreover, whatever the jaundiced look upon becomes sickly-yellow, because many seeds of yellow stream off from their bodies to meet the idols of things, and many also are mixed in their eyes, which by their infection tinge all things with their pallor. Now we see things that are in the light out of the darkness, because, when the black air of the gloom, which is nearer, first enters and seizes on the open eyes, there follows in hot haste a bright air full of light, which, as it were, cleanses the eyes and scatters abroad the dark shadows of the former air. For the latter is many times more nimble, many times finer and more potent. And as soon as it has filled the passages of the eyes with light, and opened up those which before the black air had beleaguered, straightway follow the idols of the things which are lying in the light, and excite our eyes so that we see. But, on the other hand, we cannot do this in the darkness out of the light, because the air of the gloom, which is denser, comes on afterwards, and fills all the channels and beleaguers the passages of the eyes, so that none of the idols of things can be cast upon them and stir them.

And when we see from afar off the square towers of a town, it comes to pass for this cause that they often look round, because every angle from a distance is seen flattened, or rather it is not seen at all, and the blow from it passes away, nor does its stroke come home to our eyes, because, while the idols are being borne on through much air, the air by its frequent collisions constrains it to become blunted. When for this cause every angle alike has escaped our sense, it comes to pass that the structures of stone are worn away as though turned on the lathe; yet they do not look like things which are really round to a near view, but a little resembling them as though in shadowy shape. Likewise our shadow seems to us to move in the sunshine, and to follow our footsteps and imitate our gait; if indeed you believe that air bereft of light can step forward, following the movements and gait of men. For that which we are wont to name a shadow can be nothing else but air devoid of light. But in very truth it is because in certain spots in due order the ground is bereft of the light of the sun wherever we, as we move on, cut it off, and likewise the part of it which we have left is filled again; for this cause it comes to pass that, what was but now the shadow of our body, seems always to follow unaltered straight along with us. For always new rays of light are pouring out, and the former perish, like wool drawn into a flame. Therefore readily is the ground robbed of light, and is likewise filled again and washes away its own black shadows.

And yet we do not grant that in this the eyes are a whit deceived. For it is theirs to see in what several spots there is light and shade: but whether it is the same light or not, whether it is the same shadow which was here, that now passes there, or whether that rather comes to pass which I said a little before, this the reasoning of the mind alone must needs determine, nor can the eyes know the nature of things. Do not then be prone to fasten on the eyes this fault in the mind. The ship, in which we journey, is borne along, when it seems to be standing still; another, which remains at anchor, is thought to be passing by. The hills and plains seem to be flying towards the stern, past which we are driving on our ship with skimming sail. All the stars, fast set in the vault of the firmament, seem to be still, and yet they are all in ceaseless motion, inasmuch as they rise and return again to their distant settings, when they have traversed the heaven with their bright body. And in like manner sun and moon seem to abide in their places, yet actual fact shows that they are borne on. And mountains rising up afar off from the middle of the waters, between which there is a free wide issue for ships, yet seem united to make a single island.

When children have ceased turning round themselves, so sure does it come to appear to them that the halls are turning about, and the pillars racing round, that scarcely now can they believe that the whole roof is not threatening to fall in upon them. And again, when nature begins to raise on high the sunbeam ruddy with twinkling fires, and to lift it above the mountains, those mountains above which the sun seems to you to stand, as he touches them with his own fire, all aglow close at hand, are scarce distant from us two thousand flights of an arrow, nay often scarce five hundred casts of a javelin: but between them and the sun lie the vast levels of ocean, strewn beneath the wide coasts of heaven, and many thousands of lands are set between, which diverse races inhabit, and tribes of wild beasts. And yet a pool of water not deeper than a single finger-breadth, which lies between the stones on the paved street, affords us a view beneath the earth to a depth as vast as the high gaping mouth of heaven stretches above the earth; so that you seem to descry the clouds and the heaven and bodies wise hidden beneath the earth—yet in a magic sky. Again, when our eager horse has stuck fast amid a river, and we look down into the hurrying waters of the stream, the force seems to be carrying on the body of the horse, though he stands still, athwart the current, and to be thrusting it in hot haste up the stream; and wherever we cast our eyes all things seem to be borne on and flowing forward, as we are ourselves.

Though a colonnade runs on straight-set lines all the way, and stands resting on equal columns from end to end, yet when its whole length is seen from the top end, little by little it contracts to the pointed head of a narrow cone, joining roof with floor, and all the right hand with the left, until it has brought all together into the point of a cone that passes out of sight. It happens to sailors on the sea that the sun seems to rise from the waves, and again to set in the waves, and hide its light; since verily they behold nothing else but water and sky; so that you must not lightly think that the senses waver at every point. But to those who know not the sea, ships in the harbour seem to press upon the water maimed, and with broken poop. For all the part of the oars which is raised up above the salt sea spray, is straight, and the rudders are straight above; but all that is sunk beneath the water, seems to be broken back and turned round, yes, and to turn upwards again and twist back so that it almost floats on the water’s surface. And when winds in the night season carry scattered clouds across the sky, then the shining signs seem to glide athwart the storm-clouds, and to be moving on high in a direction far different from their true course. Then if by chance a hand be placed beneath one eye and press it, it comes to pass by a new kind of perception that all things which we look at seem to become double as we look, double the lights of the lamps with their flowery flames, double the furniture throughout the whole house in twin sets, and double the faces of men, double their bodies. Again, when sleep has bound our limbs in sweet slumber, and all the body lies in complete rest, yet then we seem to ourselves to be awake and moving our limbs, and in the blind gloom of night we think to see the sun and the light of day, and, though in some walled room, we seem to pass to new sky, new sea, new streams, and mountains, and on foot to cross over plains, and to hear sounds, when the stern silence of night is set all about us, and to give answer, when we do not speak. Wondrously many other things of this sort we see, all of which would fain spoil our trust in the senses; all in vain, since the greatest part of these things deceives us on account of the opinions of the mind, which we add ourselves, so that things not seen by the senses are counted as seen. For nothing is harder than to distinguish things manifest from things uncertain, which the mind straightway adds of itself.

Quote from Matt

So when it comes to this topic I do take a very agnostic and apophatic approach straight from Menoeceus. That’s where I leave it now.

I definitely agree with that! We see over and over how overemphasis on the details of the divinity issue can be MUCH more trouble than it is worth. I think that's one of the best arguments I have seen people make about why there is no final book in Lucretius going into those details!

I feel like that if we had more of Epicurus he would probably have put all this into the perspective that just like I told Pythocles about speculations about the stars, you have to be careful not to take the position that something that is in fact unclear is really clear, and you have to avoid considering that there can only be one answer to a question when there is not enough evidence to rule out multiple possibilities!

Elli I do have a couple of questions to be sure I understand your meaning:

(1) So what do you see as the proper understanding of "gods" in Epicurean philosophy? I see you referencing living as gods among men, and you are saying that Epicurus did not mean that literally. Can you say more about the implications of what he DID mean?

(2) And maybe as an example, how do you take the opening of Book 1 of Lucretius and how that fits into your view?

I know there's a lot more to this topic but I am sure the people in this thread would be interested in more details of your view given that you are so much more familiar with Greek traditions, current Greek Epicurean views, etc, than most of us are.

I'm still thinking about the details of how to respond to the substance, but more than that I want to say how good it is to see you posting again!

Google Translate says: "All this analysis is incredible, thanks to you for sharing it"

You are welcome Gilberto. Unfortunately most of us here speak only English...

Hello and welcome to the forum GilbertoMoncada

This is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

1. "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
2. "A Few Days In Athens" by Frances Wright
3. The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
4. "On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
5. "Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
6. The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
7. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
8. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
9. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
10. A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
11. Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
12. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

Welcome to the forum!

"And the pleasure which we daily feel in all these things helps us to banish any sorrow." - Pericles the Athenian.

I consider this sentence by Pericles to be very important. He says that the pleasure which we 𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 feel helps us to banish any sorrow. Yes, this is clear and obvious when many people in a society feel sorrow and melancholy are due to their fears of god, fear of death and are the same issues that lead to loneliness and depression the persons in a society. In this society people are not participating with gladness in common affairs political or religious. They are not creative. They are not grateful. They are not eudeamonic/blissful. They are fatalists, apathetics and suspicious to each other. And they blindly vote for leaders like themselves, who think that are like the axis of Earth spinning around the Universe. Because if the common affairs (philosophical, political, religious etc.) became boring, we may think and also this : Is there any virus in these peoples' life that provoke to them an illness as a great plague? Is there something that is going against to these peoples' nature?

IF the 𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 things and common issues, in any society, bring to people the painful feelings of sorrow, stress, agony, depression and melancholy, this society is doomed to be dissolved because these feelings lead to suspicion and disastrous actions among same people. This society has no coherence anymore. And as the greek idiom says : "in any disaster, only the carnivorous wolves are feeling happy".

And here we read from Meneoceus : "I (Epicurus) have abolished the Necessity that is introduced by some thinkers as the mistress of all things, for it were better to subscribe to the myths concerning the gods than to be a slave to the Destiny of the physicists, because the former presumes a hope of mercy through worship but the latter assumes Necessity to be inexorable".

And that means for being united with the others in my society I will put all the probabilities on the table for doing the hedonic calculus according to the right study of Nature and my nature, and even to subscribe worshiping with others our common gods. Because for being bliss and happy I will use all the tools that lead myself and my society living our unique life in pleasure. Since we all 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 that there is no other life nowhere else.

But when these tools do not bring us pleasure anymore e.g. worshiping some gods, we are able to change and even the image of those gods because we are 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 to choose whatever brings to us pleasure. And when we say we are free, we are also 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀.

What means 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀 ? It means also self-sufficient, and as Epicurus says, the great fruit of self-sufficiency is freedom. A𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀 also is the swerve (pareglisi) which means we are responsible and capable to give all the laws by ourselves and for ourselves since, we do not accept that the laws are given by some leaders or by any god when they were proved harmful. We are able to change and the laws, and the leaders and the gods when they do not bring to us any 𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 in our daily common affairs.
However, what the new greeks are doing now in Epicurus homeland? They insist to vote the same stupid leaders. They insist to follow stupid religious leaders who are spreading the same image of a foreign stupid god.

I want back again all the 30 thousand ancient greek gods that their image was given clearly by Epicurus as natural beings that were living in bliss and pleasure that is according to the natural and not the unnatural. I want back that Democracy of Pericles that is all described of how can be achieved in his epitaph. I want hundreds of epicurean Gardens to be established in the cities of Epicurus homeland. I want the epicurean philosophy to be taught properly inside the schools and academies. This choice and option is against the new greeks' sorrow and melancholy that became higher after the financial crisis.

No, thrice NO in Greece - and not only in Greece - the crisis 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥. The crisis is in all the values that have been turned upside down. The means i.e. the virtues became as abstract goals, and the real goal i.e. the pleasure and eudaemonia, and the proclaimer of these feelings Epicurus, is hidden and be slandered for centuries and centuries till our days.

𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘄!

Quote from Martin

They are real optical phenomena which happen outside of our bodies, which our eyes report correctly to the brain and which are not tricks our eyes play on us.

Martin I probably expressed my point poorly, and the way you state this, I wonder if that makes mirages exactly a GOOD analogy to what Epicurus appears to be saying. He seems to be saying that the centaurs that are rarely but sometimes seen may be real optical phenomena too?

I suspect what we're talking about here is going to clarify as we proceed to talk about more details in the rest of the poem, so I'll just keep an open mind and we'll see where the discussion goes.

Quote from Elayne

He apparently didn't conceive of human imagination being a process which does not actually require something entering the brain from the outside,

I think this comment indicates what we can look at as we proceed to clarify things. But already I would say I would not approach it from the "didn't conceive" perspective because it seems more likely to me that he certainly would have entertained that possibility (for example is it not inherent in Plato's theory of "remembering"?) I would think it's more likely that what we're dealing with is something more along the lines of the statement to the effect that "The gods would have had no pattern either" as one of his arguments as to why the universe is not supernaturally created. He did seem to stress that we have to have experiences / stimuli in order to get our minds working in the first place.

Possibly he is making the very broad point that even imagination is ultimately the mind recombining past experiences in different ways so that in effect it is true that everything going on in our minds is our processing and recombining of past observations / stimulations that we've received since birth, mixed with anything that is innate.

I think here in this too about Cicero's comment to Cassius Longinus joking/ridiculing that maybe he was thinking about Cassius because his spectre floated into his mind.... Whatever is going on here Epicurus must have been understood to have emphasized the importance of outside stimuli in a way that we are finding counterintuitive -- or maybe this is another example of him looking at things in ways so different than we are conditioned to do that we don't fully recognize what he was saying.

No doubt we're going to conclude that significant aspects of what he was saying were "wrong" according to our current knowledge, but I'd also bet that if we consider broadly the point that he was making it's likely we're going to find that he had good reasons for his positions.

I have never been one to accept explanations of Epicurus' views simply because they are "convenient" to other parts of his theories, but I do think in this case we have a very convenient use for the discussions involved in the Centaur issue. It is probably helpful - and even probably true - that people can get very strongly convinced that they see or hear certain things that others can't validate - and in fact in most cases they can't themselves validate by future observations. So long as we insist firmly that ultimately things MUST be validated by ongoing observations that are "verifiable," then it's probably helpful in many ways to be open to the possibility that "the light plays tricks on us" or that phenomena such as the illusions we are about to discuss in the rest of book 4 can in fact appear to us to be something real when in fact it is not.

There are many aspects of religion and views of the gods that I think Epicurus would be loathe to accommodate or "humor," but there are also the kind of innocent and naive assertions that some people make that they "saw something" that might be explainable to them by explaining the effects and possibilities of "images" - and without stretching the truth as to what "can" happen. It would probably be easy to analogize the tricks our eyes play on us in things like the mirages of pools of water in the desert, and I doubt it would be far off to describe that as an interplay of images "flying through the air" in ways we don't expect. If I remember correctly we'll have a lot more occasion to entertain the possibility of using images to explain false views of the gods and the rise of religion in the material upcoming in book 5.

I think this will clarify as we proceed and I'm perfectly prepared to think that it may be my own views that change more than others' here. Although I've read and listened to these sections numbers of times in the past this is really the first time I've discussed it in the level of detail that we are doing now, so I am sure I'll have much to revise as we go forward.

Here is a quick note that my thoughts are beginning to clarify as to what I'd like to target for my own activity in 2021 in addition to the ongoing projects.

Most of my thoughts revolve around continuity and stability, and I continue to see two things that I really want to accomplish:

(1) I want to get back to developing a completely free and open set of core texts that will always be easily findable and downloadable. What I mean here is I want to take the work I've already done in compiling digital text versions of the core documents and get those better organized for further editing and organization. Being the computer geek that I am, I continue to play with the idea that Epicurean philosophy is closely akin to a computer's "operating system," and I know the way that people collaborate to refine operating systems and computer software is to use facilities like "github" to publish into the public domain core material that others can "fork" and use however they see fit. I think a good clean copy of the Diogenes Laertius biography, plus Lucretius and the collection we have through Bailey's "Extant Remains" would be a good core set of material that everyone who has any interest in Epicurus at all should have a copy of from the very beginning. It's going to be a decade or more (I forget) before DeWitt's book can be added to that, but setting up some sort of standard reference would be a big help to a lot of people and would make sure that the material never gets "lost" again. So my specific goal here is to set up some text at a location like this ( https://guides.github.com/features/wikis/ ) and set up a structure to refine it over time on the condition that everything in it is totally public domain and totally "open source" and re-pursose-able by anyone who wants to use it for any purpose, free or for-profit or whatever. I don't completely understand how the "professionals' do this, but here is a page of explanation of how people work together on something like this: https://guides.github.com/

(2) Item one is more my area of expertise, and this item is not at all, but just like we need a set of standard reference texts for the knowledge / abstraction side, people really need a standard method of thinking about how to organize their Epicurean friendships in real life. We've never been able to develop a workable structure for a real-life Society of Epicurus or even a pattern for a Meetup Group, but there's got to be a way to make progress on that. I suppose EpicureanFriends.com is itself a prototype for how people can get together online, but there's got to be a way to develop a structure for people to get together at least a small group in their local communities (at least if those communities are large enough). This probably means a short but clear "organizational plan" that would be something like what one would expect to be used by the Kiwanis Club or Lions Club or whatever - a pattern for getting together locally and live at least once a month, and a set agenda for what is to be done at that meeting. Getting much more detailed than that has proved unworkable so far, but I would at least like us to devote a thread to the topic so we can brainstorm to see what is possible. So my specific goal here is to at least make a start at an organizational document that can provide a structure for local teamwork, probably also basing it totally openly and public domain as with the github link above.

I agree to this extent - that I don't like the term "self-generated" or even "self-arising" and I am not suggesting that they are self-generated even under the suggestions I am making. What this text seems to clearly indicate to me is that due to natural movements of particles just like all others the images become enmeshed in ways that were not generated by an actual object in the first place, just like any kind of wave is going to be altered by contact with another wave. It's in our minds that we assemble them and believe them to be actual centaurs. I am not sure I even see the issue here or what would need to be left unexplained? Certainly our greater knowledge gives us greater insight as to what particles and waves are ever-present in the "atmosphere" around us, but the basic insight that our senses are interacting with material things that are "flying through space" seems to me to be pretty reasonable(?)

I tend to think that clouds may provide a useful example to discuss but that we should not link this topic to closely to clouds so as to imply that clouds are the only or even a primary example. For the same reason I am concerned that focus on calling them "self-generated images" may be too limiting.

My suspicion is that this subject of particle flows is like eternity and infinity - the implications of this are huge and Epicurus is following the implications much more deeply than we would think of doing today. Those implications will derive from the presumption that all objects are constantly giving off streams of particles in all directions, and that these particles are constantly producing all sorts of results as their streams impact each other and interfere with each other. I think we should indeed be comparing these thoughts with modern optics/physics ideas like interference waves we discuss today. As with the example of clouds, the example of eyes and vision may be a primary example but not at all the only example. Is our understanding of magnetism today as deriving from particle flows really that much different than Epicurus is discussing? Is there really any reason to draw a bright line between our terminology of "energy" and what Epicurus was suggesting (that whatever exists has a real material basis to it)?

We haven't gotten yet to the discussion of magnetism as particle flows but that is going to be directly relevant: https://archive.org/details/lucret…e/n643/mode/2up

1743 Commentary on magnetism:

Excerpt from the text:

This is just a short clip - the whole section is important - we are not just talking about the process of sight.

As we continue through book four and the rest of the book we're going to confront many examples of illusions and phenomena that appear to derive from particle flows, and I think we need to keep a very open mind that his suggestions are not so ridiculous as they might seem. "Action at a distance", of which magnetism is maybe one of the easiest to grasp examples (since we can hold it in our hands so easily) must have an explanation other than magic or divinity, and as I understand the issues even as discussed today, particle flows remain a viable explanation. And if those particle flows we see in magnetism are really just one example of an essentially numberless quantity of particles flowing in all directions at all times, then Epicurus was right in considering this to be a very important subject and not just something for idle speculation.

In this episode we get into a discussion of how images of things which never existed can be formed by images becoming distorted as they move through the air. Probably the most specific reference on point to this is in regard to centaurs, and here is a clip with that reference. This is around Latin line 736:

(Actually I need to check to see whether this is discussion is Episode 52 (not posted as of this writing) or 51)

Today I see that Jordan has rejoined the Epicurean philosophy Facebook group, and posted a long piece about his background. That material needs to be here on this website somewhere for those who interact with Jordan, so I'm pasting it here. Jordan if you prefer it to be somewhere else or want to expand or elaborate, please do:

Hello all. My story goes thus: I come from an atheist family from Britain. We moved to rural South Africa when I was ten, and I was placed in schools where the curriculum was explicitly guided by Protestant Fundamentalism. I'll never forget a cartoon in my biology textbook where a kid from this perfect white nuclear family runs up to a chimpanzee enclosure at the local zoo and exclaims, "Gee, Dad! He looks like a man!" And then, sanctimoniously, the Dad delivers all the usual Young Earth Creationist drivel. Throughout my teens, I rebelled against religion. I had a penchant for National Geographic, and I knew all the YEC doctrines were crap -- and I lost no opportunity to tell the students and teachers their beliefs were nonsense.

When I returned to the UK when I was 19, I got very interested in the New Atheist movement -- led by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. However, in 2017 I underwent a powerful religious experience which I interpreted as an Evangelical experience of Christ. I became an Anglican -- never a YEC -- but I always felt uncomfortable with the traditional doctrines. They struck me as either metaphysically implausible, or ethically questionable. But I'd discovered the benefits of religiosity, of having an ideology to guide me and base my identity on; of having a community of like-minded friends with whom to discuss philosophy. So I tried to stick it out, hoping my doubts would eventually peter out. But they didn't, and about nine months later I grudgingly and sadly renounced my faith.

Then I discovered liberal theology, popularised by the likes of Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan. But the initial excitement of finding a more intellectually fulfilling theology was replaced by a feeling of disappointment, both at how unrecognisable it made the Christian faith and at how unpopular and alienating a theology it is. And so, I renounced my faith again. It was around this time I discovered a book called 'The Pleasure Principle' by Catherine Wilson, and I felt an immediate affinity with the philosophy of Epicurus. It seemed to offer purpose, meaning, and value in an ontologically purposeless, meaningless, and valueless physical universe, while at the same time avoiding the pallid nihilism of the existentialists.

I became very active in one of the Epicurean online communities for the next year, but then my undeniable desire for religiosity pulled me away from Epicureanism and back towards Christianity. However, my return to Christianity was nothing more than a shorter version of my first stint: I felt attracted to Faith, but soon I found I couldn't accept the traditional doctrines; I explored liberal theology, but I again found it underwhelming, and I returned to atheism. But atheism alone is not enough -- at least for me -- and I have returned to what I consider the most attractive atheist worldview -- the philosophy of Epicurus.

However, there is a difference between atheism and secularism. The first is the denial of a transcendent God, the second is the rejection of religion. Epicureanism is a form of atheism, but it needn't necessarily be a form of secularism. It can be an atheist religion, and I am deeply interested in what I call Epicurean Neopaganism. Neopaganism is an atheistic religious movement which interprets the gods of classical religions as concepts, ideals, symbols, or archetypes to be worshipped. It is a way of seeing the world as divine, rather than claiming the world is divine. We see a version of this in Lucretius:

"If anyone decided to call the sea Neptune, and corn Ceres, and to misapply the name of Bacchus rather than to give liquor its right name, so be it; and let him dub the round world "Mother of the Gods" so long as he is careful not really to infest his mind with base superstitions."

My favourite part of On the Nature of Things is the glorious opening hymn to Venus, the chief "deity" of Epicurean Neopaganism. Here is a quote from the Introduction of the Penguin version of On the Nature of Things:

"Lucretius’ Venus may seem to have too many functions: she is the mother of the Romans, the Epicurean pleasure principle, the season of spring, the sexual drive, the goddess of peace and a kind of muse invoked to impart beauty to the poet’s language. How, it may be asked, can a single figure symbolize so many disparate things? But that is precisely Lucretius’ point: everything that happens, the experience of pleasure, the winds blowing, the flowers blooming in the spring, the beasts rutting, the poet composing – has the same essential cause. Every action, all creation and all destruction are alike the product of the push and pull of atoms, of these elementary particles colliding, cohering or flying apart."

Venus, in Epicurean Neopaganism, is a way of poetically worshipping Nature within the confines of metaphysical naturalism. It is a middle way between the superstition of Abrahamic faith and New Atheist anti-spirituality, and it's a project I'm keen to develop. Would this be of interest to other members? Even if it isn't, I hope to get to know many of the other members through participating in the interests of this group.

Peace and safety to all!

Quote from Don

I also think that Epicurus via Lucretius is adamant about receiving particles *from* bodies to contrast with other philosophers that said vision was possible by something coming from the viewer (like a flashlight).

On this point i read a little from DeWitt on the workings of vision in the podcast today, and you're definitely right in your flashlight comment. DeWitt says Plato and/or Democritus held to that view.

Quote from Don

However, I am more than happy to share any progress on personal projects (On Piety, Letter to Menoikeus, Epicurean practices experiments, etc.).

You seem to have ample going on with your personal projects and it would be a shame to interrupt them, so please don't! Your posts with your personal research have been great additions to the forum. My comments are mainly directed at those of us (like me) who could make more efficient use of their time and have inclinations in other areas that they aren't currently pursuing.