Posts by Cassius

Actually I want to pull back my first good impression of that bliss drug comment. Now that I look at it again, is the analysis really correct? Is she in fact showing that she does not understand the importance of maintaining that pleasure is pleasure and good in itself, and that the reason that the problem with a bliss drug is its IMPRACTICABILITY, not the desire for total pleasure?

The second paragraph seems to hint at the right analysis, but..... she isn't stating WHY it is good to experience the world as it is....

Elayne I particularly want to know what you think about that! The more I think about it the less I like it. I think she is buying into the "we must have pain in order to experience pleasure" argument which might give us a good example of why Epicurean divinity has an important use -- to illustrate that pain is not necessary to the best life ??????

Oh my this implicates a lot of our discussions! Is Wilson so focused on the practical feeling / experience aspect that she has lost the importance of the "logical" argument by which we must maintain that pleasure is desirable in and of itself? Is this an illustration of how we must constantly recognize BOTH the logical and practical arguments lest we slide down a slope in which we lose our focus on the need for both?

Now I have raised two topics (1) the political angle of the article, and (2) Wilson's bliss drug analysis. Of the two, the SECOND is far more important than the first.

Here is a new article by Catherine Wilson:https://www.newstatesman.com/international/…phy-we-need-now

Who can disagree with the title?

Quote

OK I just looked at this one and see it is actually a new article by Catherine Wilson. It contains some good philosophical points along with some not-so-good, but is something most of us would personally agree with. However it's focused on politics, and my view is that it would probably not be a good idea to post it, especially right now.

All of us in the USA are no doubt aware that political tensions right now are probably higher than any time in our lifetimes, so this is probably a particularly good time to adhere to the posting guidelines for the greater good of our mutual project here.

I almost want to post the article solely for this following paragraph, and I might pull the paragraph out somehow and post it anyway. This increases Catherine Wilson in my estimation, but the danger involved in opening discussion into humanism and politics is probably too great to post the whole article.

I even hesitate to post these confidential comments because I want us to stay away from politics as far and as long as we can. But at the very least we need to be open to discussing where the limits are, and I think at least here in this confidential group we have a close enough relationship we can at least discuss where the limits are, if anyone has any comments.

This is a video that was discussed here some years ago, but only recently became available again:

Thanks Don. There are some significant issues with parts (not all) of the article, as Elli's and Elayne's posts point out, but there are some good parts too and that's part of what we're here for -- to discuss things and help clarify issues for everyone.

Jordan Crago recently posted an article "Epicurean Atheopaganism" on his blog "The Modern Epicurean." You can click through to read that article.

Elli and Elayne have written some lengthy and very good comments on Facebook, and I want to preserve those comments by pasting them here:

Quote

Elli wrote:

In this article we read : "The ancient Epicureans attended religious festivals, visited temples to offer prayers, and formed religious rituals within their communities: they celebrated the 20th of every month to honour Epicurus’ birth, where they would come together and feast". Questions :

1. From where it comes (sources) this argument that Epicurus along with the ancient epicureans formed religious rituals inside the community of the Garden ? 2. What has to do the celebration of one’s birthday with his friends with the practices of a religion? 3. What has to do practicing religiosity and prayers with the practicing in philosophy ?

Answers : VS65. It is pointless for a man to pray to the gods for that which he has the power to obtain by himself.

I recommend constant activity in the study of Nature i.e. I recommend constant activity in Physiology i.e. Physics, Gnosiology i.e. Canon that both are connected with scientific works, knowledges, and doings along with Ethics that is a way of life, which above all, respects the uniqueness of the person, but mostly is not connected with sacred orders or doings. And only the word "sacred" ethics it reminds me the sacred maxims in Delphi and sacred orders along with mysticism of the clergy. So, says Epicurus, the only I recommend is the constant activity in the study of Nature and in this way MORE than any other I enjoy calm in my life.
Another point in this article that I would like to comment: "Lucretius’ conceptual or allegorical Venus is playing many roles in this hymn: she is the mother of Romans."

What ? only the Romans had a mother with the name Venus ? What about the other Nations? What is the name of the mother as goddess or the archetype of other Nations? Name her please.

If we want to play with the concepts of the words that are connected with symbols, archetypes and names, and if we connect the gods with a nation and the conquerors of Epicurus' nation, here it follows the conclusion that the victorious of wars impose to others the archetypes of gods that have in their minds. And if we would like to connect Lucretius’ Venus as mother of Romans with the pleasure of the Romans that were the conquerors (historically proved) of the nation of Epicurus, the pleasure of Romans has nothing to do with the pleasure of Epicurus and his fellow compatriots.

And if we want to extent this more, here how comes the conclusion that the consequences of any practicing of religion is leading to wars and strife.

My above argument is based on this, that I would like to make it more clear : When Lucretius wrote his book DRN and it started with the hymn in Venus as a mother of Romans, his book was addressed to only one person, Memmius that was a Roman too. Lucretius did not have the intension to proselytize others in an archetype that has in his mind. He did not have the intension to impose the ideal and the archetype as a goddess with the name Venus to other Nations and the mob. So, the hymn to Venus by Lucretius and his pleasure, as connected with an archetype was a very personal issue for him and in extension to his known person as Memmius.

Sorry, I do not agree, we do not get along on the basis with practices in religiosity. Epicurus said it clearly:

The wise man gather together a SCHOOL, but even he gather together in a school, he never so as to become a leader of crowds.

"Atheopaganism" as a term includes the suffix-ism and declares that is an ideological system that has a leader and followers. Epicurean philosophy is not Epicureanism. No, it is not a system and never would be. It is a philosophy as a way of life that has no leaders and followers because above all it respects the uniqueness of the person in any place and in any Nation knowing and this : a man cannot become wise in every kind of physical constitution, or in every nation.

“I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them, the will to a system is a lack of integrity.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

Display More

Quote

Elayne wrote: I'm glad you decided to be Epicurean!

I have a few comments. On the idea that religion makes people happier (and this is measured as pleasuredness so far as I've seen, the feeling and not an abstraction), this is not established. There are some correlations-- if one lives in a religious culture, there are some studies showing more happiness. The big confounding factors there could be differences in access to social capital, feeling like one fits in, and maybe being persecuted by religionists.

There is an association between extreme economic disparity and increased religiosity, which seems to be causal in that the disparity happens first, and when it is relieved, religiosity decreases.

There is a consistent correlation between higher IQ and lower religiosity. Idk how that relates to happiness, but just an example of a potential confounder.

Countries with lower economic disparity and lower religiosity tend to be higher in happiness ratings than religious countries. Whether that's due to economics, atheism, or another factor, idk-- but it's at least evidence that religiosity isn't necessary for happiness .

Second-- the atheopagan principle of pleasure being good IF it harms no one else is not Epicurean at all, and the difference is critical to understand. That's paganism-- "and it harm none"-- but it puts some other good, nonharming, higher than pleasure, bc whatever limits a good must be more important.

EP doesn't say that. Most of us simply don't desire to harm others. It would cause us direct and immediate pain. Those of us who are less empathetic can be influenced by the prospect of being caught and punished. The result is usually still non-harming, but not always. Using pleasure quickly solves those issues like self defense, deadly defense for one's child, etc. Having the single top standard of pleasure prevents having to say there are exceptions to one's primary goal-- pleasure is always the goal.

Third, ataraxia does not mean a type of pleasure. It is the absence of mental distress. It doesn't describe the pleasure that is present anymore than absence of void describes matter. We do not put tranquility as some higher type of pleasure. Our goal is actually pleasure.

Display More

Quote

Elli wrote:

As it well known, the latest agreeable definition of health is that is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

"Of the wise man" quotes we also read: "Even if the wise man should lose his eyesight, he will not end his whole life". And that is because as long as that wise man lives is able to feel pleasure and eudeamonia in his life.

The same with the definition of health, is for pleasure that is a feeling of complete physical, mental and well-being, and as Epicurus said it with the word "eudaemonia", and not merely the absence of the feeling of pain or the absence of tranquility.

But most of the people do not understand that Epicurus, with the usage of terms as aponia and ataraxia, was one of his efforts to show the limit of pleasure in the accusation that was done by Plato et al. who said that Pleasure is something that extents to infinite and can't be fullfilled as a feeling from anywhere, as they also said that pleasure is the goal of the profligates. For this Epicurus said and this also VS 59. It is not the stomach that is insatiable, as is generally said, but the false opinion that the stomach needs an unlimited amount to fill it.

And from Meneoceus : When therefore we say that pleasure is the end we do not mean the pleasures of profligates and those that consist in high living, as certain people think, either not understanding us and holding to different views or willfully misrepresenting us; but we mean freedom from pain in the body and turmoil in the soul. For it is not protracted drinking bouts and revels nor yet sexual pleasures with boys and women nor rare dishes of fish and the rest – all the delicacies that the luxurious table bears – that beget the happy life but rather sober calculation, which searches out the reasons for every choice and avoidance and expels the false opinions, the source of most of the turmoil that seizes upon the souls of men.

A false opinion is that when someoene prays to the gods, gods will get interest for his prayer, and without doing something more BENEFICIAL and PRACTICAL then suddenly he feels pleasure, when the whole society around him is collapsed from many other reasons e.g. the coronavirus... and he, what is he doing ? He just prays !

71. Every desire must be confronted by this question: what will happen to me if the object of my desire is accomplished and what if it is not ?

Just pray, and then be sure that you would find the right answer in the above question!

1

Display More

Bryan thank you for posting the translation notes! I know that many people here are interested to know more about you.

And I wonder if you have any readings of Lucretius that might be of interest here. We used to have access to some excellent readings of the Latin by a very good contributor, but we lost those when the older Facebook group was deleted.

This difference in perspective among people keyed into the issues is fascinating!

"That's what I find so intriguing about the range of words translated as happy from the texts: makarios, eudaimonia, then types of happiness like euphrosyne and khara."

Don is it safe to presume that these words had different shades of meaning, so that using happiness in each case is almost certainly overbroad?

Thanks for your question Godfrey - it prompted me to move these comments under the thread started back in 2019. It's long past time to discuss this further!

Admin Note: Don asked a great question of Matt about happiness vs pleasure, and that discussion needs to continue as long as appropriate, but so as not to disrupt this thread on science and eterrnality etc, I clipped that out and moved it here: RE: On "Happiness" As An Abstraction / "Pleasure" As a Feeling. As for Matt's comment, let's include in this thread issues such as how do you know that there is no supernatural retribution or reward?

Hello and welcome to the forum Bryan ! [Admin note from Cassius: If I recognize the user avatar / icon correctly, welcome indeed!!! ]

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!

Quote from Matt

If scientists are going to unanimously start preaching pantheism and creationism etc. presumably they will come bearing significant evidence? More so than anecdotal evidence from religionists.

And this is my issue with overly-broad references to "science" and "scientists." -- Which scientists are we going to listen to, when they disagree among themselves. I seem to remember when I was younger that people were so jaded about Russian scientists speaking the party line rather than the truth that that would be an example of the type of scientist definitely not to follow. And it's really hard to achieve much by saying "reputable scientists" or "the majority of scientists" because we can all point to examples when the scientific consensus on something was wrong. And if we stick to the broadest formulation "science says..." I again think we're doing only a little more than those who say "the bible says...."

Quote from Matt

I'll have to watch myself...yes they are one in the same.

Is it? I think that's actually one of the subtexts that we are discussing. Are they really "one and the same"? I would say that we likely have to view them differently -- pleasure is a feeling which we know without logical analysis; happiness may also be thought of as feeling, but seems to be a higher-level construction that contains mental operations beyond just feeling. Of course the word "pleasure" is not itself a feeling, but a word that denominates a feeling.

I guess this is why Epicurus was wise to refer more centrally to pleasure than to "happiness," but more than that, it's probably an important part of Epicurean philosophy to explain this point and prevent people from being confused in their own minds about this.

And that's where we get back to the issues of science and theories etc -- we can point to the feeling of pleasure and observe instances of it, but don't we also want to be able to explain in words to other people what we're talking about? So we have to move not only from observation of instances to a systematized explanation that people can understand, and that's not altogether easy to do.

Quote from Matt

I only want to know that I need not fear supernaturalism and divine retribution and that the sun will not be extinguished if I don't perform certain prayers and sacrifices.

I think Epicurus might ask you: "And on what do you base your knowledge that there will be no supernatural retribution if you don't indulge in those prayers and sacrifices?"

Don I think you make a great point -- we need to be absolutely clear about what we mean by science. And frankly in most discussions I don't think people are at all clear as to what they mean, and they include all sorts of things that are dubious in the picture when they say things like "Science says....". As far as I am concerned that is very poor phrasing, and there is no such thing as "science saying something" -- only particular scientists saying particular things. I am much more comfortable with words like "knowledge" or "wisdom" of "facts" or "truth" (such as included in the definitions below) than I am with "science." The implications and limitations of words like "knowledge" and "truth" are more familiar to us, but it seems that all someone today has to say is "science says" and they think they have won any argument. In every case I am going to want to know who are the scientists being referenced and exactly what it is they are maintaining to be true.

In fact I would go so far to say that the sentence "Science says that the universe is 14 billion years old" is about as meaningless as "Religion says that the universe is 5000 years old." I want to know the details of who is making the assertion, and on what it is based, before I would accept either assertion. The last thing we should want would be for the word "science" to become a term of intimidation by authority, like the word "religion" or the word "virtue."

I would therefore be very suspicious of a term such as philo-science, and I do think that there is a reason for thinking that there is a "scientism" issue going on in the world today as part of what we are dealing with. And I think that Epicurus dealt with exactly the same question, which is an undercurrent to what we are talking about -- he too was concerned about the limits of those who make claims based on authority of all kinds, rather than on things that we can clearly observe and consider to be established "facts."

I'll also interject this paragaph from Lucian's "Aristotle the Oracle Monger" as I think it illustrates the interplay of theory and observation, and the need to at times hold on to the conclusions of sound theory rather than current observation, which is what I think we are ultimately talking about. I think this is showing what it is that Lucian really considered Epicurus' achievement to be, and I think Lucian is correct.

Quote

And at this point, my dear Celsus, we may, if we will be candid, make some allowance for these Paphlagonians and Pontics; the poor uneducated ‘fat-heads’ might well be taken in when they handled the serpent—a privilege conceded to all who choose—and saw in that dim light its head with the mouth that opened and shut. It was an occasion for a Democritus, nay, for an Epicurus or a Metrodorus, perhaps, 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.

http://epicurism.info/etexts/Alexander.html

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.