Posts by Cassius

I dunno, I think you guys are off in useless speculation. Why would you care about arcane rules of reasoning like limits and boundaries, and how to weigh conflicting evidence? Don't you know that you're supposed to leave that to the Academic Experts, and that the only thing that matters about Epicurus is that the greatest pleasure is the absence of pain? Don't you know realize that all you have to know to be a true Epicurean is that you need to barricade yourself in a cave, drink only water and eat only a little cheese, reduce your bodily experiences to the smallest possible amount, concentrate on asceticism, and ignore the rest of the word?

Boy you guys have been drinking from the wrong fountain!

We could mix Lucretius in there in a similar category as Philodemus. Some people seem to think there are substantial differences between Epicurus and Lucretius -- I don't think that at all, but given the time difference there are certainly possibilities that he didn't get everything right despite his best efforts.

I think I posted on Philodemus elsewhere that I think there is a big issue with corruption of texts and issues with reconstruction in evaluating him.

Every discussion turns into a discussion of evidence, doesn't it? The best I can say is that every time we hit a controversial issue we have to look closely at the state of the text to determine how much confidence we have in that. If the text is fragmentary and we're relying on reconstuctions and have large amounts of missing context, then sometimes even something Cicero or even Plutarch records could actually be more reliable.

My classic example of this is the "tetrapharmakon." It seems to be very clear, but there is little or no (I always hedge and say "little or no" but I think the truth is, there is NO) context from surrounding paragraphs to tell us who was saying this, or why. And since what I read in the tetrapharmakon seems to be a gross oversimplification of the first four PDs, which I think it was intended to mirror, then I don't accept any implication of the tetrapharmakon that conflicts with the first four PDs.

So considering the ranking of Philodemus vs DeWitt, there are definitely caveats that have to be considered that separate them.

Quote from Susan Hill

From Philodemus "On Piety", referring to Epicurus' "On Nature", Bk. 13. Translation from "The Epicurus Reader" by Brad Inwood

"In book 13 [he mentions] the congeniality which god feels for some and the alienation [for others]."

This is the first quote I would focus on here, but I'll discuss it below in context of Elayne's comment.

Quote from Elayne

This is another reason, besides the material implausibility, that I do not think the original Epicurean description of the gods is compatible with where Philodemus has taken it.

First, I agree with the drift of Elayne's post that this quote needs to be scrutinized very closely. On it's face, it would contradict the most basic statements that gods show no concern whatsoever for humans, plus even more, it contradicts the specific statement that they don't play favorites and enemies.

But rather than assume that this is where Philodemus has taken it, I first question the accuracy of the rendition. Even as quoted, it appears to be a fragment, and indeed if in Book 13 Epicurus did "mention" the issue of congeniality and alienation, I would first and strongly presume that he mentioned it only to denounce it - and it doesn't seem firm from the quote which is the case. This (when the rendition creates a clear conflict) is an example where I don't trust the compilers whatsoever, and would not put any stock in that until we traced back exactly what condition this particular text was in that produced this rendition.

Without intending to sound negative toward anyone in particular, almost every time I have gone back to the more academic texts which print renditions of the texts in addition to the proposed translation, it seems to me that I have found HIGHLY fragmentary material, wherein even the fragments that are left are largely guesswork on which we are relying on someone we may not even know at all to recreate the letters. Despite the best of intentions, people have a tendency to see what they want to see, or what they expect to see, so whenever there is a proposed rendition that would conflict with a more basic principle, the highest level of scrutiny should be required.

Thus while I am prepared to believe that Philodemus may not always have been an "orthodox" Epicurean, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt and put the suspicion on the transmission rather than on the original text.

So in this example, for instance, it's highly helpful to cite these along with the proposed rendition. Now the task is up to those of us who can find the time to do it to trace back further and see where In Inwood and Gerson got their original text.

All of this keeps constantly bouncing me back and forth between the divinity and the "methods of inference" discussion. I don't think we have any choice in much of what we do but to rely on "experts." I certainly don't know a word of Greek myself. But even worse than that is that we have to trust that the texts are not corrupted, and in many cases we have no idea about the chain of transmission.

What do we do in those cases? Roughly speaking,. we have to verify the experts as much as we can, I think, and then we are basically in the situation discussed in Hermotimus.

You're probably correct that it's too aggressive for now. I would like to point in that direction for the future, however, because I am thinking that ultimately the issues involved are not really something that need as much detailed documentation as they do sort of generalist command of the alternative positions. Yes a command of the texts is an important part of getting to that understanding, but I'm thinking that the "fun" would not be so much a matter of citing texts as much as it should be the ability to articulate the "conclusions" of the alternative points.

Here I think I am following the drift of many of Elayne's comments - ultimately we're not making our decisions today on how many texts we can stack up, but on how we ourselves are able to put together the positions into something that makes sense to us.

Or at least that's what I am thinking is really the goal of most of what we're doing here - real life application rather than purely academic citations of references.

Thanks Don! So part of what you are saying as to singular / plural is that Epicurus seemed to be more refering to "divinity" (even, the "concept of divinity") rather than to a particular god or gods?

I tend to think that would be especially true in the Principal Doctrines, in that my view of them, especially the first ones, is that they are more on the order of logical propositions about death, divinity, pain, and pleasure, than they are specific assertions about particular instances.

We have at least two very deep threads going on right now, one on "divinity" and one on "principles of Epicurean thinking / analysis."

I would appreciate everyone thinking as we near year-end how we can extend the discussions.

I think we would all enjoy a Skype or Zoom (audio only ) session on these topics, so lets think about how that might be organized. Perhaps with someone making a presentation and then we just go round the table with responsive comments afterwards?

I am also thinking we could identify major alternative positions within the Epicurean alternatives, and perhaps have sort of a "debate" structure. Designate one or two people to present a position for 5 or 10 minutes, then two more people present the opposite position for 10 minutes. I think we have enough people to do that. To repeat, I am not talking about non-Epicurean vs Epicurean positions, but alternative possibilities for what the ancient Epicureans advocated where we are not clear on what they were saying. 

But the key in order to prevent hard feelings and to get the most of it:, for the second 20 minutes, have the teams reverse and take the position opposite the one they argued the first time!

There's no better way to understand an issue than to be able to present both sides. Think about it- here are the two topic threads:

Reverence and Awe In Epicurean Philosophy

General Identification of the Argument in "On Methods of Inference"

Let us know your thoughts on whether this might be of interest.

The issue there may be in how we are applying the terms realist and idealist, since those are our terms rather than based in the texts. I am thinking that the letter supports that Epicurus held both that they are real and that they serve as aspirational models, and that he saw no conflict between the two observations. Is that what you infer?

(Ha - I should not say "our" terms, because I don't like them and would never suggest that there is any reason to separate them.)

This could turn into a huge thread as well, and that would be a good thing. I really want us to eventually go through the text of On Methods of Inference in detail and not even just rely on what DeLacy has summarized. For all we know his analysis is incorrect -- we don't want to put blind faith even in the experts toward whom we are well disposed.

One major advantage that we have here, as opposed to some other of Philodemus' texts, is that the material seems to be pretty well preserved and we're not relying so much on "reconstructions." Although of course as I type that I really don't know that to be the case, and it will be good if we one day find a way to verify that the text is in good shape, and that what we're reading is not just DeLacy's speculations.

Quote from JJElbert

So....there's a lot going on here. 😆

That's an understatement!

But having a lot going on is a GOOD thing. It means we're processing information, formulating new ways to articulate it, and presumably gaining pleasure from it - either now or in the future pleasure that will come from dealing with these issues now.

This the the direction that needs exam I agree. How does one articulate "enough" in these issues

LOL - great example!

Yes absolutely and I think what you're saying is very clear. But I think we are going to find that when we review the Epicurean material that still exists that there is good reason to think that what you're saying there is something they would readily accept. I think what the ancient debate was all about is the next step beyond the statistical analysis method, and that the statistical analysis focus today might actually be a regression.

They seem to have been grappling with "what is certainty" and "can any level of statistical analysis ever be worthy of being called 'certainty'" and issues that seem very close to being word games, but which some people take very seriously, even those who are at the cutting edge of whatever science is available to them.

Yes there has, Susan, but I think it is critical to (1) not let personalities get in the way of understanding, and (2) that we find ways to continue cooperation and to work together even where there is not complete unanimity.

The most difficult issue is to decide when an issue rises to such a level that we can't accept anything less than totally separating ourselves from another person or approach.

And I don't think it is something that can be decided by statistics (a reference to another current discussion! ) We can be 98% in agreement with someone else, but if we find that 2% is critically important then we often ignore the sheer quantity of agreement.

What I find so frustrating is that i think THESE are the issues that are core to what Epicurus was teaching, and it's THESE issues (divinity, methods of inference, infinity and eternality and non-supernaturalness) that we need to focus on and understand. and I don't think modern discussion of Epicurus has even broken the surface of this.

Instead, the commentators are hyperfocused on "the greatest pleasure is the absence of pain" and they ignore all of these deeper issues which I think alone can allow someone to understand what Epicurus was saying about pleasure.

I am glad you posted the video because I don't think I was aware of it and this gives us the chance to review it. I regret that people coming across videos like this will think as a result of watching them that the statements made in them are absolutely correct and true to Epicurus, because many of them I don't think are correct at all. But in the end all that any of us can do it the best we can -- all we can do is present our positions and our reasons for taking those positions.

Quote from Elayne

That is an important issue, and it's where statistics come in. We use things like p values and control groups to tell us how likely it is that our results are to be different from chance. We can choose how certain we want to be about a particular conclusion.

I see this as the key to the issue. There is, so far as I know, no bright line that statistics themselves can provide -- there is ultimately some other standard, outside of statistics itself, which ultimately governs what "p value" we are going to accept and "how certain" we want to be. Ultimately there remains a key decision, above simple statistics, that we have to decide how to live with. is that not correct?

Did I hear it correctly at 1:58 that it is foolish to celebrate festivals "if gods are indifferent to us?"

That's way too ambiguous. As stated (if I heard correctly) it is a statement that gods take an interest in us. I feel sure that the texts (even Philodemus) don't say that, and that the point is rather more like "the issue of divinity is not a matter of indifference to us" which is a totally different point.

That's one precise point of the video we need to examine.

Edit 1: I want to be fair and say that a lot of effort went into the video and there are parts I think are good. I particular liked the graphic of the couple climbing the mountain as appropriate for what was said from about 3:00 to about 3:45

At the 5:00 minute mark or so there is a strong assertion that people "originally" had better anticipations of the gods than later. I question the accuracy of that statement.

I think it's dangerous and not warranted to imply to close a relationship between Epicurus and Theodorus the Cyreniac.

At 6:50, a reference to natural selection in the development of the gods? I have to think that is a pure overlay on the part of the commentator and I don't know of any text reference that would support that (?), as it would be taking a position on whether gods have a beginning, which I don't recall there to be anything on (?)

At 7:26 Epicurus advised us to pray? Are we sure of that specifically?

At 8:00 he cites George Kaplanis, who is Elli's friends. I am not able to confirm immediately what George's views are but just making a note that knowing his more complete views would be useful for evaluating the quote.

At 9:22 the reference to "Epicurean justice based on social contract" is a loaded reference to a very controversial subject.

As to that, oh no - quoting very specific material like that without drilling down to the precise text to determine its context and what extent it is reconstructed vs trustworthy is very dangerous. This concern I have underlies everything about many of the texts of Philodemus, which are except in rare instances in very poor condition. Maybe this particular translation is rock solid, but these texts don't deserve the same deference as Diogenes Laertius, Cicero, or some of the other core texts.

I would repeat that caution with much more force in regard to this quote about "doing no harm to anyone" and "make themselves harmless to everyone" and "make themselves noble."

Same caveat here and on every reference to "noble"

At 11:47: "the true purpose of religion, which is to abide in pleasure." Making note of this as a very broad statement which may be easy to misinterpret.

At 12:50 it is suggested that the "realist" view of gods (a term i don't like) was the "original" view of the Epicureans, but that "some later" Epicureans adopted an idealist interpretations. Who is he referring to here as the "some later Epicureans"? I think he's probably referring to Hiram himself and current people now alive, because I am not aware that any actual ancient Epicurean from the ancient world and familiar with the texts took that position. That is a huge point and should not be glossed over. The "idealist" interpretation is not supported by any credible ancient Epicurean, so far as I know. If there are such examples it would be important to bring them forward and highlight them, because otherwise I think the inference from the evidence is that anyone who was actually an Epicurean and had access to Epicurean texts either followed Epicurus and considered them "real," or implied that Epicurus was lying about the whole thing.

Oh this is an August 2020 video so I have not seen it yet -- is that Alan's voice and is this primarily his video?

That's because I was so furiously typing on this subject with comments i think are pretty important that I wanted to be sure to get in as the second poster!

it's updated now.

Ha! That's a very logical thing to post, but you have hit upon a sensitive area that I want to immediately comment on even before watching this video (which I don't recall from memory).

Speaking for myself only, I've had significant back and forth discussion with Hiram (leader of the Society of Epicurus) for many years, and I consider him a friend within the broad meaning of that word. I wish him success in his Epicurean endeavors, but there are many important differences in the approach which Hiram has chosen to pursue vs what I and a number of the other core regulars have chosen to pursue. One way of getting a handle on those differences would be to review the very long thread here: Discussion of the Society of Epicurus' 20 Tenets of 12/21/19

I will need to watch the video before commenting further, but I think we all should be honest with ourselves and with each other about our own dispositions. I am personally not well disposed toward "eastern" philosophies or their cultural aspects, because I associate them in my mind with viewpoints about life which I find unattractive and which I think conflict with Epicurean philosophy at very basic levels. Obviously not everyone has the same associations and same reactions, and it's helpful to everyone to explore and understand differences so as to better understand the issues and what they think themselves.

I don't like to air my own dispositions any more than necessary, but I do so in this case because in past years there have clearly been different "camps" among our friends, consisting of those who are well-disposed toward "eastern cultural symbolism" and those who "are not" (to put it mildly). I am definitely not the only one in that camp but I probably ought not reference anyone but myself. So as a general principle of the forum I think our core people have had a consensus to focus on Greco-Roman/Epicurean material as a means of building our own community, deemphasizing "eclecticism" in favor of first and primarily highlighting and understanding the Epicurean tradition.

I want to stress that these comments aren't directed at Susan for posting this or at Hiram for having the views and methods that he does, but just to set a reminder baseline of some background history.

This is all very complex but I think the Epicureans would assert that reasoning by analogy is in fact the very definition of amassing evidence before coming to a conclusion, and of what is today thought of as the best scientific method.

Its inconceivable that the Epicureans would have turned their back on any true discoveries of Aristotle or anyone else, or would have failed to use a common sense approach to problem solving such as testing alternatives before choosing among them. It seems to me the issue is more probably how they choose to handle the philosophical implications of limitations in evidence, which is inherent always in beings which are not "omniscient." That's the most basic level of this issue I think - recognizing that we never have all the information we would like to have, and deciding how to move forward giving that fact.

I think in this review we want to examine Francis Wright's extended discussion of observation vs. Theory in AFDIA. I still tend to think that her analysis there ends up being the conclusion of one line of thinking on this topic, but I am not sure anymore how to categorize it. At the moment I am only 50% confident that it follows the position that Elayne is asserting, but I think there is at least that 50% chance that it does.

The only thing I am 100% confident of is that the topic we are discussing now is of extreme importance and that I (and I think many of us) have not devoted sufficient time to it.

Quote from Elayne

Although reasoning by analogy was a stopping point then, continued observations of nature have taught us analogy is insufficient. It can generate hypotheses which then are tested. Testing of hypotheses-- making predictions based on a hypothesis and observing the results-- had not been discovered yet

That paragraph from Elayne points to series of questions that will require a lot of detail, starting at least with:

1. "Have taught us that analogy is insufficient." That is the question. What was the Epicurean method in full, and how did they deal with the obvious issues that can arise from use of analogy? We know they were using analogy in part, but probably not in whole and alone, and apparently they were trying to tie analogy as tightly as possible to empirical observation. There is apparently a lot of detail in the texts that do survive, as they were challenged in their methodology by the Stoics, and they composed extensive responses in reply.
2. "Testing of hypotheses... had not been discovered yet." I suspect that that will require a lot of review in order to predict how the Epicureans would respond to that. I think that's really the issue here, that of grasping a workable understanding of the issues involved that can be understood by a normal person and applied in real life -- because if all we come up with is a hugely complicated formula with a lot of variables, our result isn't usable in real life, and we are left back with a "faith" issue of how to pick those scientists whose methods we don't understand, but whom we decide to trust.

That's why I think Philodemus' book is particularly useful as it helps us flesh out these issues so we can come to something understandable and workable.