Posts by Cassius

Ok let's add THIS to the pot: Isn't the name generally given to Cicero's work -- "DE FINIBUS"?

And wouldn't it be fair to think that the connotation intended by Cicero (if in fact he used that title or term) was not primarily "boundary-mark" or "border" as much as it was "Ends in the sense of purposes or goals"?

My layman's observation is that most scholars tend to translate the title as "On Ends" rather than "On Boundary-Marks" or "On Borders"

And I think they intend their readers to think that the book ("De Finibus") is about the proper goals of life, rather than the art of land-surveying or map-making.

Perhaps this is one of those situations where the Romans of 50 BC had a slightly better command of the subteties of ancient greek than do modern dictionaries

What about the Greek, Don? I know the first thing that comes to mind is PD3:

If viewed in that way, this is pretty much mirror of what is stated in the letter to Meneoceus as:

Quote

The right understanding of these facts enables us to refer all choice and avoidance to the health of the body and (the soul’s) freedom from disturbance, since this is the aim of the life of blessedness. For it is to obtain this end that we always act, namely, to avoid pain and fear. And when this is once secured for us, all the tempest of the soul is dispersed, since the living creature has not to wander as though in search of something that is missing, and to look for some other thing by which he can fulfill the good of the soul and the good of the body. For it is then that we have need of pleasure, when we feel pain owing to the absence of pleasure; (but when we do not feel pain), we no longer need pleasure.

So if we focus on the "goal" or "purpose" aspect then PD3 is not to focus on what is the "highest" pleasure, or calling absence of pain the highest pleasure, but more like "The purpose of [the pursuit of ?] pleasure is the removal of pain...."

Which of course reminds us of the constant issue of how to characterize "absence of pain" - but that's not a problem when one keeps in mind the full picture of the philosophy, which includes (1) the true positive meaning of the feeling of pleasure, and (2) the issue that Epicurus would have wanted to combat the claim that the pursuit of pleasure can never be satisfied, which is the "limits" argument raised by Plato in Philebus.

I do think that the most damaging aspect of the modern interpretations of this is to equate absence of pain with the "highest" pleasure, and viewing this as a restatement of the purpose of pursuit of pleasure, rather than the "highest" pleasure, is probably an effective way of dismissing that argument. Especially when we continue to view all actions (including the pursuit of anything) as a tool to be evaluated in terms of whether it results in pleasure or not.

It would be natural for "purpose" to be a prime concern of Epicurus - probably so much so that "purpose" is primarily the first thing on his mind and all else is a subtext, since in the end he has concluded that our great need in life is pleasure/ happiness and you would never expect him to be very far from that premise.

In listening to this over today here's something I'd like to explore:

In the sections where Lucretius is talking about people not realizing the "limits of possession" (I need to find the quote) I wonder if th4re is not another shade of meaning rather than the "limit" referring to "how much is possible."

Don't some of the words for "limit" have the additional connotation of the "goal" or "target" of a thing?

In the context of discussing the "limit of possessions" I would think it would be more natural for them to be saying that people don't keep in mind the REASON FOR WHICH they pursue possessions in the first place. To me, the issue is not that people forget or don't think about calculating the optimum amount of possessions, as if there is some magic quantity -- they forget the "target" or the "goal" or the reason for having possessions in the first place -- which is pleasure. To me that makes it easier to understand the point - that you calculate the optimum amount of possessions to pursue purely by reference to whether the amount of your possessions optimizes your pleasures.

Which is closely parallel to how you judge the "virtues" or any other "tool" (which is what possessions are) - you calculate the optimum amount or even whether a thing is desirable or not by looking to the purpose for choosing in it or engaging in it. You're really not so much worried most of the time whether you are actually AT the "maximum extent" of a thing but whether it is helping you make progress toward that target.

And of course all this reminds me that the word "limit" as it is used fairly regularly in Epicurean texts is not a word that we today may be construing in the same way as they would. It seems to me that your normal ordinary person ALWAYS thinks of "limit" as "cap" or a "maximum" or a "restraint" - all words that have negative connotations. We don't normally use it today to mean the second definition here of "the utmost extent"

It would be interesting to look into the Greek and Latin words being used when our translators use "limit" to see if there are shades of meaning that might be helpful to explore.

NOTE: OK I see that in the Latin that is translated limit of possession what we have is FINIS - which is easier to see as "the END" in the sense of "the end of the activity is to achieve ______"

nimirum quia non cognovit quae sit habendi finis et omnino quoad crescat vera voluptas....

Welcome to Episode Eighty-One of Lucretius Today. In this Episode 81 we will start at approximately Latin line 1350 and we'll go through the end of Book Five. As always, please let us know if you have any comment in the thread below. Please remember also that you can subscribe to our podcast through any podcast player and download them directly to your phone at the link below.

Welcome to Episode Eighty-Two 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. 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 visit EpicureanFriends.com where you will find our goals and our ground rules. If you have any questions about those, please be sure to contact us at the forum for more information.

In this Episode 82 we will read approximately Latin lines 1 through 67 as we open Book Six.

Now let's join Don reading today's text.

Munro Notes-

1-42: Athens first gave mankind corn and laws; but better than all him who, when he saw that men had all the necessaries and refinements of life and yet were miserable, taught them true•wisdom and the way to true happiness and rid them of empty cares and fears.

43-95: once more I mount my chariot, to tell what remains to be told of the things which go on above us, and to dispel the causeless fears of men who believe such things to be tokens of divine wrath : the gods will indeed plague you, if you so believe; not that they will themselves do you any hurt, but the images proceeding from their holy bodies will stir up these vain fears and poison existence. I have now therefore to sing of thunder, of tempests, of other things that take place in the sky.

Browne 1743

[01] Renowned Athens, first to wretched man gave the sweet fruits, and human life refreshed, and published laws; but comforts nobler far than these she gave, when to the world she showed great Epicurus, formed with such a soul; who from his mouth delivered sublime truths, as from an oracle, whose fame for so divine discoveries dispersed every way abroad and was raised after death above the skies.

[09] For when he saw how little would suffice for necessary use, and by what small provisions life might be preserved; that Nature had prepared every thing ready to support mankind; that men abounded with wealth, and were loaded with honor and applause, and happy in their private concerns, in the good character of their children, and yet their minds were restless at home, complaining and lamenting the misery of their condition; he perceived the vessel itself (the mind) was the cause of the calamity, and by the corruption of that, every thing, though ever so good, that was poured into it was tainted: it was full of holes, and run out, and so could never by any means by filled; and whatever it received within, it infected with a stinking smell. And therefore he purged the mind by true philosophy, and set bounds to our desires and our fears. He laid open to us the chief good, that point of happiness we all aim at, in what it consists, and showed us the direct way that leads to it, and puts us into the straight road to obtain it. He taught what misfortunes commonly attend human life, whether they flow from the laws of nature or from chance, whether from necessity or by accident; and by what means we are to oppose those evils, and strive against them. And he has fully proved that men torment themselves in vain, and are tossed about in a tempestuous ocean of cares to no purpose. For as boys tremble and fear every thing in the dark night, so we in open day fear things as vain, and little to be dreaded, as those that children quake at in the dark. and fancy advancing towards them. This terror of the mind, this darkness then, not the Sun's beams nor the bright rays of day can scatter, but the light of nature and the rules of reason; and therefore I shall the more readily proceed to execute what I have begun.

[43] And since I taught the fabric of the world was mortal, and that the heavens are formed of corruptible seeds, and whatever they do, or ever will contain, must necessarily be dissolved; attend now to what remains, especially since the hope of carrying the prize has encouraged me to ascend the chariot and engage in so noble a race; and since the difficulties that once attended the course are removed, and the roughness of the way is made favorable and easy. The various wonders men behold in the earth and in the heavens perplex their minds, trembling and in suspense, and make them humble with the fear of the gods, and press them groveling to the ground; and being ignorant of the cause of these events, they are forced to confess the sovereignty and give up everything to the command of these deities. And the effects they are unable to account for by reason they imagine were brought about by the influence of the gods; for such as well know that the gods lead a life of tranquility and ease, if they should still wonder by what power the world is carried on, especially in the the things they see over their heads in the heavens above, they relapse again into their old superstition; they raise over themselves a set of cruel tyrants who, the wretches fancy, can do all things, because they know nothing of what can or what cannot be, or by what means a finite power is fixed to every being, and a boundary immovable which it cannot pass. Such are more liable to mistakes and to be carried widely from the right way.

Munro 1886

[01] IN days of yore Athens of famous name first imparted corn-producing crops to suffering mankind, and modeled life anew and passed laws; and first too bestowed sweet solaces of existence, when she gave birth to a man who showed himself gifted with such a genius and poured forth all knowledge of old from his truth-telling mouth; whose glory, even now that he is dead, on account of his godlike discoveries confirmed by length of time is spread abroad among men and reaches high as heaven.

[09] For when he saw that the things which their needs imperiously demand for subsistence had all without exception been already provided for men, and that life, so far as was possible, was placed on a sure footing, that men were great in affluence of riches and honors and glory and swelled with pride in the high reputation of their children, and yet that none of them at home for all that had a heart the less disquieted, and that this heart in despite of the understanding plagued life without any respite and was constrained to rave with distressful complainings, he then perceived that the vessel itself did cause the corruption and that by its corruption all the things that came into it and were gathered from abroad, however salutary were spoilt within it; partly because he saw it to be leaky and full of holes so that it could never by any means be filled full; partly because he perceived that it befouled so to say with a nauseous flavor everything within it which it had taken in.

He therefore cleansed men’s breasts with truth-telling precepts and fixed a limit to lust and fear and explained what was the chief good which we all strive to reach, and pointed out the road along which by a short cross-track we might arrive at it in a straightforward course; he showed too what evils existed in mortal affairs throughout, rising up and manifoldly flying about by a natural –call it chance or force, because nature had so brought it about – and from what gates you must sally out duly to encounter each; and he proved that mankind mostly without cause arouse in their breast the melancholy tumbling billows of cares. For even as children are flurried and dread all things in the thick darkness, thus we in the daylight fear at times things not a whit more to be dreaded than what children shudder at in the dark and fancy sure to be. This terror therefore and darkness of mind must be dispelled, not by the rays of the sun and glittering shafts of day, but by the aspect and law of nature. Wherefore the more readily I will go on in my verses to complete the web of my design.

[43] And since I have shown that the quarters of ether are mortal and that heaven is formed of a body that had a birth, and since of all the things which go on and must go on in it, I have unraveled most, hear further what remains to be told; since once for all \[I have willed\] to mount the illustrious chariot \[of the muses, and ascending to heaven to explain the true law of winds and storms, which men foolishly lay to the charge of the gods, telling how, when they are angry, they raise fierce tempests; and, when there is a lull in the fury\] of the winds, how that anger is appeased, how the omens which have been are again changed, when their fury has thus been appeased: \[I have willed at the same time\] to explain all the other things which mortals observe to go on upon earth and in heaven, when often they are in anxious suspense of mind, and which abase their souls with fear of the gods and weigh and press them down to earth, because ignorance of the causes constrains them to submit things to the empire of the gods and to make over to them the kingdom. For they who have been rightly taught that the gods lead a life without care, if nevertheless they wonder on what plan all things can be carried on, above all in regard to those things which are seen overhead in the ethereal borders, are borne back again into their old religious scruples and take unto themselves hard taskmasters, whom they poor wretches believe to be almighty, not knowing what can, what cannot be, in short on what principle each thing has its powers defined, its deep set boundary mark; and therefore they are led all the farther astray by blind reason.

Bailey 1921

[01] IN time gone by Athens, of glorious name, first spread among struggling mortals the fruits that bear corn, and fashioned life afresh, and enacted laws; she, too, first gave sweet solace for life, when she gave birth to the man gifted with the great mind, who once poured forth all wisdom from his truthful lips; yea, even when his light was quenched, thanks to his divine discoveries his glory, noised abroad of old, is now lifted to the sky.

[09] For when he saw that mortals had by now attained well-nigh all things which their needs crave for subsistence, and that, as far as they could, their life was established in safety, that men abounded in power through wealth and honours and renown, and were haughty in the good name of their children, and yet not one of them for all that had at home a heart less anguished, but with torture of mind lived a fretful life without any respite, and was constrained to rage with savage complaining, he then did understand that it was the vessel itself which wrought the disease, and that by its disease all things were corrupted within, whatsoever came into it gathered from without, yea even blessings; in part because he saw that it was leaking and full of holes, so that by no means could it ever be filled; in part because he perceived that it tainted as with a foul savor all things within it, which it had taken in. And so with his discourse of truthful words he purged the heart and set a limit to its desire and fear, and set forth what is the highest good, towards which we all strive, and pointed out the path, whereby along a narrow track we may strain on towards it in a straight course; he showed what there is of ill in the affairs of mortals everywhere, coming to being and flying abroad in diverse forms, be it by the chance or the force of nature, because nature had so brought it to pass; he showed from what gates it is meet to sally out against each ill, and he proved that ’tis in vain for the most part that the race of men set tossing in their hearts the gloomy billows of care. For even as children tremble and fear everything in blinding darkness, so we sometimes dread in the light things that are no whit more to be feared than what children shudder at in the dark and imagine will come to pass. This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature. Wherefore I will hasten the more to weave the thread of my task in my discourse.

[43] And now that I have shown that the quarters of the firmament are mortal, and that the heaven is fashioned of a body that has birth, and have unraveled well-nigh all that happens therein, and must needs happen, listen still to what remains; forasmuch as once \[I have made bold\] to climb the glorious car . . . . . . . . \[I will tell how the tempests\] of the winds arise, and are appeased, and all that once was raging is changed again, when its fury is appeased; and all else which mortals see coming to pass on earth and in the sky, when often they are in suspense with panic-stricken mind—things which bring their hearts low through dread of the gods, and bow them down groveling to earth, because their ignorance of true causes constrains them to assign things to the ordinance of the gods, and to admit their domination. For those who have learnt aright that the gods lead a life free from care, yet if from time to time they wonder by what means all things can be carried on, above all among those things which are descried above our heads in the coasts of heaven, are borne back again into the old beliefs of religion, and adopt stern overlords, whom in their misery they believe have all power, knowing not what can be and what cannot, yea, and in what way each thing has its power limited, and its deepset boundary-stone: wherefore all the more they stray, borne on by a blind reasoning.

[

At this point in this thread Camotero added the post that I have now split off into this thread, given its importance:

Thread

Analysis of Video By Sabine Hossenfelder ("You Don't Have Free Will But Don't Worry")

One of the links on this thread: Sabine Hossenfelder - Why the Multiverse Is Religion

Took me to a website where Sabine H. wrote about why free will is inexistent. After the pleasant surprise we had with the other two videos @Cassius I thought it may have been an error but I did find out this video later on:

youtu.be/zpU_e3jh_FY

It seems to me that this "paradox" (because, of course, we perceive free will with our senses, but she states we're being fooled) falls a bit into what was talked…

Mathitis Kipouros

July 30, 2021 at 7:20 AM

Quote

according to Epicurus, our free will cannot be an emergent property and must belong to the atoms themselves. The physical and ethical consequences of the swerve are, according to these accounts, discrete. The will to depart slightly from downward fall through the void has no apparent ethical goal, and free will, although present at the atomic level, is not manifest in all compounds.

WHAT??????

Cannot be an emergent property????

Free will is present at the atomic level?????

No!

Hmmmm I just read that full article and that last sentence which you quoted ("Summary: If a philosopher starts speaking about elementary particles, run.") seems almost a non sequitur to the rest of the article. Apparently she means the reader to understand that a philosopher would be talking about elemental particles only because they (the philosophers) were talking about the particles having thoughts? If so that surely does not apply to Epicurus and one begins to wonder just how much reading into Epicurus she has done - is it possible that the answer is "not much"?

Oh my! Good catch Don, we need to look into this. You are certainly correct -- there is no hint or anything I have ever seen anyone refer to as to another text which indicates that the particles "decide" anything. and of course there are repeated references as to how living things com from non-living particles, and something that is not alive presumably by definition doesn't decide anything!

Looks like our resident post Joshua must be taking a sabbatical!

I think we fixed the login problems so I doubt it's that....

Yes I am going on what Bailey wrote and not the Greek, so that's the problem. So you're saying is that the "faculties" he has likey refers to the "resources" which is a reference to our home/work environment?

Very good video thank you Don! I know our friend Illka Vouristo over at the Facebook group is a fan of Dennet as well.

Sorry - it was hard to follow where the post originated - it is from the VS41 thread -

We must laugh and philosophize at the same time and do our household duties and employ our other faculties, and never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy.

it's going to take some time for me to read the details of that but thank you camotero! Your recent contributions to the forum have been outstanding and I really appreciate them!

As to Hossenfelder I noted the video you mentioned when I was checking out her YouTube site, along with her video on creating new universes, which also seemed to be less impressive than the others we've mentioned. As to the baby universe video, however, I thought she was indulging in far too many "coulds" that seemed to be close to contradicting her viewpoint in the first video you posted, plus her eventual position still seemed to separate her when she even specifically disputed Lawrence Krauss's definition of "nothing" - which I thought was a good thing and a ray of hope.

I hope when we dig into the details of her free will position we will be able to identify why and where she goes awry and fails to follow the example of Chomsky and others. Most of the time it seems to me that people get hung up on the fact that we are obviously influenced by factors that were beyond our full control in the past, so they obsess on that and fail to accept that there are some things under our control. But of course I haven't seen her video yet so I will wait for further comment.

I wonder if this sentence was pulled from some context that makes the "other" understandable, or whether what we have is an insufficiently-perceptive translation and "other" is somehow a reference to the full spectrum of faculties constituting the canon of truth.

I also question if there is not a more modern and therefore more accurate term for "household duties"

I had heard that Martin was going to attempt to join one of your sessions and I am glad to hear that he was successful.

"Bee" - Ha!

And Bingo THIS is what I was looking for from her:

Thank you Don for that. The title looks promising.

One would like to think (since we admire Epicurus' thinking on his subject) that others would be logically drawn to the same conclusion, whether or not they have ever heard of Epicurus. So it shouldn't be surprising for us to find people who agree without mentioning Epicurus. I hope we will find that she has an affinity for Epicurus, but the disappointing thing in life is that so few seem willing to say what she seems willing to say.

Bryan I hope you are doing well! I know your interest in physics - have you run into Sabine Hossenfelder and do you have any opinion of her?