Posts by Cassius

Susan images should work basically the same way on both desktop or cell, so let us know if you still have problems. I don't know that I have tried on a cell phone so you may have run into something we need to look into.

As to the merits, I think I am in agreement with most of what I have read here. I would analogize this to "trust your eyesight." You know that there are times that your vision is blurry or that there is fog or other reasons that can distort your vision, and require you to check and recheck over time what you are seeing. But sight, regardless, remains one of the canonical faculties and you "trust" it in the sense of "honestly reported" as by a witness in court, using DeWitt's analogy.

I think exactly the same applies to feelings. I think Don's point about reactions is valid but ultimately the words that we understand and apply include feelings, emotions, etc. The main point is that like sight and hearing, feelings are honestly reported to us. They are what they are, and they are to be dealt with accordingly.

Lot's of people advise us to be "in touch with our feelings" and that is a less revolutionary way to look at it but probably similar to what Epicurus was advising.

Probably the main thing to keep in mind is that Epicurus never promises that the canonical faculties, even the five senses, are some automatic and magical gateway to "truth." The opinions we form from our senses are quite frequently wrong at first thought, and maybe even wrong over a lifetime. The same observation applies to feelings. The Canon does not guarantee us omnipotence or omniscience. it is simply and factually the only thing we have that is an "ultimate" faculty for us with which to discover truth. No one guarantees us that we will in fact discover "truths" about everything we'd like to know. The canonical faculties are what are real to us, but that doesn't mean that we are going to use them intelligently.

Over time, and with experience and even training, emotional reactions can become much more accurate, at least for some people. Some people are even known to pay respects to the accuracy of something known as "a woman's intuition" about which I personally know nothing!

Wow that's a lot of work already. I will go through it as soon as I can.

I was wondering if Roger Penrose was still alive -- apparently he is! Thanks Godfrey!

For some reason that link gave me a problem, but this one works for me:

https://www.unz.com/print/NorthAme…PDF&apages=0099

Looks the same, but I couldn't get's Charles to work....

Charles are you able to get that to download a copy of the pdf?

Edit - DUH - I got it -- open up the "tools" icon on the top right of the viewer.

Thanks Don!

Quote

contemporary readers of Lucretius would understand that one would need to purge oneself of any competing ideologies before fully accepting the teachings of Epicurus.

i've always been curious about wormwood and whether there was anything behind its choice of an illustration by Lucretius other than its bitterness:

Quote

First because I teach about great things, and hasten to free the mind from the close bondage of religion, then because on a dark theme I trace verses so full of light, touching all with the muses’ charm. For that too is seen to be not without good reason; for even as healers, when they essay to give loathsome wormwood to children, first touch the rim all round the cup with the sweet golden moisture of honey, so that the unwitting age of children may be beguiled as far as the lips, and meanwhile may drink the bitter draught of wormwood, and though charmed may not be harmed, but rather by such means may be restored and come to health; so now, since this philosophy full often seems too bitter to those who have not tasted it, and the multitude shrinks back away from it, I have desired to set forth to you my reasoning in the sweet-tongued song of the muses, and as though to touch it with the pleasant honey of poetry, if perchance I might avail by such means to keep your mind set upon my verses, while you take in the whole nature of things, and are conscious of your profit.

This does not answer that, but apparently wormwood is something that is still studied for its medicinal properties:

https://m.dw.com/en/germany-sci…irus/a-53944514

Just a few more clips from the Second collection of Frances Wright's popular discourses:

She was definitely on Jefferson's side against Hamilton:

Here Frances Wright tells us how she really feels on the issue of what to do with the chartered banks:

The final essay in Volume 2 is "The Sectional Question: On Southern Slavery" =

Ok that pretty much sums up the second collection, which seems much shorter than the first, unless the version I have is an abridgement.

Wow that IS a coincidence, and it's a great idea to investigate William Short. I will try to help but keep us posted on anything you find!

I doubt it is wise or helpful to go too far into discussion of Frances Wright's political opinions, but I do want to save people some time so they don't have to read the full books without some guidance or markers ahead of time. I will LIST a few choice excerpts to show her views, which seem to have been intended to promote a very radical and very sweeping overthrow of almost every aspect of existing society:

(1) Starting around page 166, in the chapter "Existing Evils." Not just universal public schools as we might think of them today, but very strongly regimented public schools for children in which parents are allowed minimal interference, and apparently minimal contact with their children:

(2) The following is not a political opinion, but it is so pointed an indictment of speculation about the nature and origin of the universe that I have to include it as significant to her perspective:

(3) And she carries that forward to advocate a kind of tolerance, that it does not matter if we disagree so long as we keep our opinions about speculations to ourselves (?)

OK at this point I have finished reading the first book of lectures. There is some in it about slavery, but not really a lot, as I would have expected based on reputation. It is really a much deeper blueprint for full societal revolution based on overthrowing the church and existing systems of culture and business, with emphasis on her theory that it is knowledge/observation that much be expanded, while speculation on religious and other matters that cannot be answered should be minimized. I see no discussion whatsoever of the issue of life after death.

Now on to the second book of lectures.

This is just SO fascinating. Wright's target is indeed going to be slavery, but she is not content just to oppose slavery - she sees the source of the movement towrard war -- on both sides -- as caused by financial interests / financial speculators / banks which she identifies as a movement of the "chartered monopolies" promoting their own interests:

And it appears that she singled out as her opposition not mobs of pro-slavery agitators, but "Federal Bank mobs":

Here she denies that she was an abolitionist as that term was generally understood:

Here are her views on what would happen after emancipation, and her views on racial developments later:

I told Elayne that I would read some more into Frances Wright to see if I could pull out particularly interesting sections of her "Courses of Popular Lectures." References here are to the PDF located here.

Here is a notation as to one such section, in Volume I -

I find this very strange. She has published an entire book praising Epicurus to the skies, and putting in his mouth exactly the words that science should be observation, and not theory, which IS consistent with Epicurus' viewpoint.

How then to explain these paragraphs, in which she slams Athenian philosophers without mentioning the exception of Epicurus, and she mentions only Aristotle (I think it is fair to say that that's a negative reference, but it's not clear to me)?

And as the text continues she then turns to praising Pestalozzi, the Christian. Hopefully by the end of this chapter on "religion" it will be clear why she is doing this.

Great line here, as to "Castles in the Air" on page 93:

OK this is important. As the chapter closes, it is clear what is going on -- she has decided that she is going to take the position simply that I DON'T KNOW - and she's not going to take a position on anything other than what she can see in this world -- and in the absence of anything said here, she does not even seem to be taking a position on life after death.

Here then we may have the ultimate dividing line and where she decided to depart from Epicurus:

This exchange from Chapter 14 of A Few Days In Athens always bothered me, because it seemed that she was putting words in Epicurus' mouth that seemed clearly different from what we know about his positions from the ancient texts. I always wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt that somehow she thought there was a way to reconcile this with what he wrote, but now I see that she simply decided to write her own position in as his. Here is the text:

Quote

“On leaving you, last night,” said Theon, “I encountered Cleanthes. He came from the perusal of your writings, and brought charges against them which I was unprepared to answer.”

“Let us hear them, my Son; perhaps, until you shall have perused them yourself, we may assist your difficulty.”

“First, that they deny the existence of the gods.”

“I see but one other assertion that could equal that in folly,” said Epicurus.

“I knew it,” exclaimed Theon, triumphantly; “I knew it was impossible. But where will not prejudice lead men, when even the upright Cleanthes is capable of slander!”

“He is utterly incapable of it,” said the Master ; “and the inaccuracy, in this case, I rather suspect to rest with you than with him. To deny the existence of the gods would indeed be presumption in a philosopher; a presumption equaled only by that of him who should assert their existence.”

“How!” exclaimed the youth, with a countenance in which astonishment seemed to suspend every other expression.

“As I never saw the gods, my son,” calmly continued the Sage, “I cannot assert their existence; and, that I never saw them, is no reason for my denying it.”

“But do we believe nothing except that of which we have ocular demonstration?”

“Nothing, at least, for which we have not the evidence of one or more of our senses; that is, when we believe on just grounds, which, I grant, taking men collectively, is very seldom.”

Display More

Continuing on:

So she DOES mention Epicurus, at least once, and approvingly, however short;

But oh my my -- can it really be true that she is going to base her morals on "good" and 'beneficial" without further definiton?

This is not directly related to investigating FW's thought process but it is too good not to include:

Well i did not expect THIS --- almost a precursor or shade of Ayn Rand in discussing self-interest, but stated in a much better way (Not sure if this comment is an aside or not, but i do personally think that this is the correct way to interpret Epicurus.)

Then she continues on to discuss what is essentially a feeling-based "moral sense" - very similar to Jefferson's formulation which i'll quote here from the Peter Carr letter:

:

He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong, merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his Nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality, and not the [beautiful], truth, &c., as fanciful writers have imagined. The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted, indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call common sense. State a moral case to a plowman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, & often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules."

Don't sleep too long, Godfrey! I have high hopes that you are the one who is going to unwind all of this for us!

I hope my linking to him above does not prove to be a total waste of time. I am so stale on all this that that is possible. I hope we can triangulate on some productive sources, but I'm not at all sure Penrose is it.

Thank you!

Quote from Susan Hill

In the split-screen experiment, it is not the observers consciousness that collapses the wave function, but a proto-consciousness within the state itself that decides to go one way or another.

Wow THAT sounds weird!

Most of the rest sounds about as complex as I would expect it to be. Thank you for taking the time to make those notes!

THIS is something I surely agree with, and applies to our conversation here too:

Quote from Susan Hill

Quantum mechanics is a provisional theory, and in very early days.

Thanks to Charles for this link -- we are going to need to double back and address this to understand the issue of "harmony" -- another example where Epicurus is attacking Plato. Sounds like Epicurus/Lucretius are supporting Simmias, at least to some extent, but possibly not fully:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simmias_o…lato.27s_Phaedo

Simmias' attunement analogy^[5]

1. Body is visible, composite and mortal.
2. A harp is visible, composite and mortal.
3. When the harp is destroyed the tune which is ethereal, invisible and divine is also destroyed.
4. The soul is like a tune (harmonia) of the parts of the body. If the body is destroyed, the tune cannot survive.

Socrates attacks Simmias's Analogy with four different arguments:^[6]

1. Harmonia-argument would be a contradiction to the anamnesis-argument that Simmias had already agreed on before.
2. If the soul would be a tune, and bodies can be tuned differently, there would be more or lesser souls - which is not possible.
3. Virtue is the proper attunement of the soul, and vice the lack of such an attunement. But if the soul itself is an attunement, then virtue and vice would be attunements of an attunement. But an attunement can't participate in non-attunement. So if a soul is a perfect attunement, it could not have virtue or vice.
4. The soul is the ruling principle of the body. But attunement is governed by the material of the musical instrument. By analogy, that would make the body the ruler of the soul.

Thus, Simmias' argument cannot be upheld.

[Crosspost from FB} One of our members, DC, has submitted an interesting question for learning: "What are some ideal Epicurean jobs? What can an average person do to lead an Epicurean lifestyle of moderate work and more time for pleasure?"

First, instead of an "ideal" job, because we hold no beliefs in abstract ideals and our goal is pleasure, I will reframe the question as "what are some jobs that could help me have a pleasurable life?"

When I see that question, it reminds me to back up even a little more and ask "how can I spend my time to have a pleasurable life?" Not everyone will decide that having a paid job is the most pleasure-producing use of their time. Some may have financial resources such that they don't need a job but may want one anyway-- others may decide not to work for pay.

If we've decided a job is necessary for pleasure, then we can think about our personal preferences and interests, our resources for obtaining any necessary training, and whether there are pains associated with jobs we are considering. Not thinking abstractly, we will want to know what opportunities are available in the places we'd want to live, and who our coworkers might be. How might the job differ from one city or country to another? How would factors like unions and other legal structures affect us? Do we like being employees, employers, working in groups, or alone? We would take a detailed view.

In some cases, the job itself can add to our pleasure-- not just the income it produces. This makes the choice of jobs an extremely individual one.

In other cases, we may find options are more limited or decide that available jobs are more pain than pleasurable, and in that case we might decide to pick one that maximized income or free time, depending on which choice suited our personal pleasure needs the best. If we live in a place where there is a lot of free or low cost pleasure, maybe outdoor activities or free concerts or museums and libraries, maybe we will work only as much as needed for food and shelter. It just depends.

As far as "average" person goes, that is an abstract way to think, not Epicurean. It doesn't matter what an imaginary average person wants to do-- it matters what you enjoy and want to do. We don't all have the same pleasures.

"Moderate" work-- our philosophy is not about moderation but maximizing pleasure. Moderate is an abstract idea, and what one person calls moderate will be extreme for another. And a person might not enjoy "moderate" work-- some prefer strenuous work or longer hours (especially if the work itself is pleasurable), and others would like to work as little as possible so they can do other things. So I wouldn't worry about the concept of moderation. It makes decisions unnecessarily complicated.

"More time for pleasure"-- what we are really after is the maximum pleasure, not more time. We each have the same number of hours in a day and make decisions how to spend those hours in such a way as to enjoy life the most. It will be a very personal, subjective process, and it is definitely worth the time to think about.

A short version of my own job history-- I wanted to be a physician from childhood. I got pleasure in the science and the learning process, so I successfully completed both an MD and a PhD. Part of the reason I got the PhD, though it took longer, was that by doing so I had my tuition waived with a scholarship and got a stipend. Parts of the training were painful. Back then, 120 hr work weeks were the usual-- but for me this was outweighed by pleasure at learning, the work itself, and the future pleasure I was building for myself.

After training, I have had different employed positions which I chose (or left) for specific work environment reasons. Right now, I have a job at a nonprofit clinic which I enjoy very much. The pay is less than at jobs I assess to be more painful than pleasurable-- for example, I do not enjoy a rushed schedule. I'm maximizing pleasure, according to my own preferences.

If you are a person who is squeamish about blood, needles, etc, or maybe just don't like talking to patients or something else about medical work-- it would be a mistake to copy my job choice! In that case, those long hours of training would just lead to misery.

DC:

Interesting. I guess as the old saying goes - work that you enjoy isn't work. A lot of my friends, including me, do not enjoy their work, but feel unable to move to a different more enjoyable job or career path due not having the resources to retrain or just because there are limited employment options in COVID right now. They often have more options than most of them give themselves credit for, but they seem unwilling to put the work in and take the risk to change to a career that would be more fuffiling. I guess they should apply the hedonic calculus more and see that the trade off of hard work and late nights now, will likely result in happiness payoffs later.

Elayne:

There are times when options are more limited. Occasionally I've stayed in jobs that had become painful until I could figure out an alternative. Even working a 3 month notice can be a big pain, lol. During those times I looked for as many ways as I could to make my time more pleasurable, and some of my decisions were mental actions. For instance, the mental action of taking time to enjoy knowing I was helping my patients-- smiling at them-- taking time to recall pleasant memories. Sometimes a small thing like just slightly slowing down helped, and I confess I enjoyed the minor subversiveness of resisting a rushed pace.

AT:

Why is ‘not thinking abstractly’ an Epicurean quality?

I enjoy planning my life to maximise pleasure.

This involves a great deal of abstract thinking.

‘I enjoy doing this, I don’t enjoy doing that, therefore I will organise myself to do more of this and less of that.’ (And if I discover that the results are disappointing, I will change my plan).

All this strikes me as a great deal of abstract thinking and I’m concerned that this is described as ‘not Epicurean’.

Martin:

A degree in science offers many opportunities where pleasure is associated with a large part of the work, and then it does not matter that the effort on the job is much more than moderate in early stages of the career.

In my case, I liked physics the most, chemistry a close second. So I did a master-equivalent degree in physics and a Ph.D. in physical chemistry. The effort for both was much more than moderate but mostly pleasurable because I liked learning.

After many years of mostly hard and mostly pleasurable work, I started to get increasingly exhausted from even a reduced schedule of just 8 hours of work such that I had no more energy to pursue demanding hobbies which before had given me a lot of pleasure in addition to that from work. In response, I took time-outs from work. Hedonic calculus applied to potential major expenses had resulted in me never buying a car or other luxury items which I did not really need (fridge, TV, ... ). Therefore, I can afford to travel and to take unpaid leave every year for these time-outs, which I spend mostly on hobbies and meeting friends.

Another example: A close relative without degree (divorced mother of one kid) appeared stuck in a low paid part time job at poverty level. She went through the effort to make a social science degree at a tele university in a subject fitting her employer's scope, subsequently got an adequate full-time job and is happy with it.

Cassius to A.T.:

Elayne can of course best answer this herself, but the point I believe she is stressing is that in Epicurean philosophy motivations are ultimately traced to real things - the reality of the pleasure or pain that our choices bring to us - and not to abstract goals that some people (other philosophies) represent to be independent of and even superior to pleasure and pain (i.e, - "virtue").

The philosophical problem I believe Elayne is referencing is not that she has a problem with "one plus one equals two," but that philosophical devotion to abstractions, rather than (as Epicurus taught) to things that are ultimately real, leads to Platonism, Platonism's stoic varieties, and all sorts of other categories of problems.

Even to say "I am devoted to pleasure" can be considered to be abstract thinking, and to be productive it is necessary to trace that back and identify pleasure as a feeling, something that is real to you, and not just as a word floating in the air or in your brain.

Oh this reminds me too, that in my checking it always seemed to me that there ought to be a PDF version of a public domain version of the Loeb Lucretius, as I think several (at least two) editions have been published. But unlike many of the other older Loeb editions, I have not been able to find a PDF of it. Munro and Bailey are easy to find (links here: http://www.newepicurean.com/library ) but not the Loeb.

I have the Loeb edition too, as it is great to have the facing page Latin. But it is my understanding (i hate to say, if Susan just bought the Loeb) that the Hacket edition (the black cover, at the Amazon link) is the most recently-updated version of Martin Ferguson Smith's work. I may be wrong, but I am gathering that the Hacket version is a revised and updated version of his work on the Loeb.

Ha -- the Devil seems to have MANY advocates in the world, maybe too many!

It's pretty clear that the current state of this topic among those who discuss it is a question of dark vs darker implications, and so my observation is that most people who want to remain sane simply refrain from discussing it. The ones who like to discuss it in current terms seem to be dominated by those who find fascination in dancing in the darkness, so to speak.

But of course being a loyal Epicurean I am convinced that there will eventually be a way forward that vindicate the non-supernatural "reality-based" perspective, and we sore need leaders in this department - it is too important an area in which to default. Maybe Roger Penrose is an example or has clues to the way forward; maybe not.

So at present we are left in an uncomfortable position of being on the defensive in an area that was originally an Epicurean strength, and that needs to change. The best defense is a good offense!

But for now I don't see much for us to offer except to look for and compile links to those who have tried to engage on this field, and then by strength of willpower affirm that our conclusions are strong that life is too important to us to give up and give in to those who have succeeded in turning "science" into a tool of supernaturalism and skepticism.

And in the meantime take what comfort is possible in knowing that we aren't the first in the position we're in ---in need of

a man whose intelligence was steeled against such assaults by skepticism and insight, one who, if he could not detect the precise imposture, would at any rate have been perfectly certain that, though this escaped him, the whole thing was a lie and an impossibility.

Just this short excursion back into the subject of quantum physics this afternoon leads me to wonder if we should not consider Roger Penrose first, maybe even higher than Victor Stenger, as the leading exponent of the way to deconstruct the destructive arguments that some draw from quantum physics.

Rather than just leave the entire issue hanging, it would be good to have at least one suggestion to give to people who are interested in pursuing this subject.

Does anyone have nominations besides Roger Penrose and Victor Stenger?

Sigh - I do not seem to have a good collection of links from past discussions. I will see what I can find and post them here, including:

Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics

No Big Bang? Quantum Equation Predicts Universe Had No Beginning

I have not watched this, but given Roger Penrose's position in the article above, this is probably worth including:

This one may be even more on point, an interview about his book: "Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe"