Posts by Cassius

Quote from bdws

I have given a lot of thought to this and I think a big part is this: Stoics have cornered the market on short, simple, effective slogans and practices that serve as a short term analgesic to pain.

This is a very interesting thread for me and comes at a good time.

(1) So the way you phrase that indicates to me that it wasn't the positive attraction of "virtue" that was the prime motivating factor, but the "analgesic" aspect that was the driving force.

(2) For the greater part of my study of Epicurean philosophy and its relationship to Stoicism I have been mostly concerned that I wanted to "get it right" and make sure I understood the issues and the choices. Not that by any means I have it all figured out now, but I am much more comfortable now that the Epicurean approach not only "feels right" but also "makes sense" for the right reasons. I think I now have a better handle on the limits of how far any philosophy can go, and where the lines exist where you just have to "make a decision and go with it."

I think most of us here (at least the regular posters) are in pretty much the same position. Most of us have a pretty good grip on what the most important issues are, and while there are definitely details that need to be improved, we have enough grasp of the big picture to be confident that we aren't likely to conclude next month or next year that somehow we've been horribly mistaken and that everything needs to be reevaluated from the ground up.

I am convinced now too that the personal interaction aspect is far more important than just writing essays and the like. Consciously or not that is probably the reason I've devoted most all my Epicurean time in the last years to this forum and other interaction rather than just to writing essays.

We have a lot more work to do to in the direction Brett is saying -- we have the general structure in place to expand our interaction with each other, but I am sure all of us need more "local" friendship and connections that the online mechanisms can help with but not solve completely. And to make progress in expanding our local friendship networks, we need more attention to those "short, simple, effective slogans and practices."

Quote from bdws

I was quite active on this forum 2 years ago and then went dormant with no notice.

THAT's what I remember! One day Brett was here with us, participating if I recall correctly even in some of our online chats (on Discord at the time), and then POOF one day he was gone!

So first of all I am glad you are doing well and that you felt free to come back, cause certainly you're welcome!

Quote from bdws

I was quite active on this forum 2 years ago and then went dormant with no notice.

Wow this sounds interesting -- I'll have to start googling to check the full significance of that but the full story sounds a lot like we've heard recently from @Susan Hill .....

What was it that attracted you back to Stoicism -- was it pretty much the call to meaningfulness, or "virtue," or what do you think. I continue to think one of our biggest challenges is communicating that "pleasure" is a lot more profound a choice than just the sex/drugs/rocknroll viewpoint, but it's a real challenge to come up with new and better ideas for explaining it so if you have any ideas....

Because in the end we really need to articulate that vision -- that it's not a matter of "Settling" for pleasure as the guide of life, as if it's a "guilty pleasure," but that the philosophy as a whole in the end just makes more sense, and in a way is in fact living "naturally" which ought to be synonymous with the best choice.

LOL - Cicero was a lawyer too, and look how much he got wrong! And in the end he lost his head over it. I would like to keep mine as long as possible!

Looks great Timrobbe!

Welcome to Episode Forty-Four of Lucretius Today.

I am your host Cassius, and together with my panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the six books of Lucretius' poem, and discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. Be aware that none of us are professional philosophers, and everyone here is a self-taught Epicurean. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book, "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.

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

In today's episode, we will cover roughly lines 548-633 from Book 3 of the Latin Text. The topic will be how additional evidence from which we conclude that the mind cannot continue to exist separate from the body after death.

Now let's join the discussion with Elayne reading today's text.

Latin Text Location 548-633

Munro Notes:

548-557: the mind is as much part of the man, as the ear or eye or any other sense: none of these can exist alone, but decay at once : so it is with the mind, which is as closely connected with the body as these are.

558-594: again body and soul depend for life one on the other: without the body the soul cannot give birth to vital motion, nor can the body without the soul continue and feel : mind and soul produce their sense-giving motions, because their atoms are kept in by the bodily frame : this they cannot do in the air; or else the air will be a body and an animal, if the soul can move in it as it moved in the body : often again in life the soul seems to fail and to be on the point of going : it is so shattered together with the body that a more violent shock would destroy it ; how then could it exist a moment, not to say an eternity in the open air? therefore when the body dies, mind and soul die.

595-614: when the soul leaves it the body rots away: a proof that the soul has come out of its inmost depths, to cause such utter ruin ; the soul then must have been torn in pieces itself, ere it got out of the body: again a dying man feels not the soul escaping entire from him, but failing in this spot or that: if the mind were immortal, it would not mourn its dissolution, but its having to quit the cover of the body.

615-623: why too is the mind never born in the head or foot, but in one fixed spot, if not because it is only a part of the body; and the body, like other things has its own fixed organism, so that every member has in it its proper place? effect ever follows cause, nor can fire arise in water, frost in fire.

624-633: again if the soul is immortal and can exist alone, it must have the five senses, as imagined by writers and painters; but none of the senses can exist alone away from the body.

Browne:

And since the mind is a part of man fixed in one certain place, as the ears, eyes, and other senses that preside over life, and as the hands, and eyes, and nose, when separated from the body, are incapable of sense, or even to be, but must in a very short time corrupt and putrefy; for the Mind cannot subsist of itself without the body, (or even be in the man) which is as it were a vessel to the soul, or anything else you can conceive more closely united to it; for it sticks inseparably to the body, and cannot be divided from it.

Further, the vital powers of the body and mind exert themselves together, and live united by the strongest bonds; neither can the nature of the Mind alone dispense the vital motions of itself without the body, nor can the body, void of soul, continue or use the faculties of sense. For as the eye, torn out by the roots and separated from the body, can see nothing, so the soul and mind cannot act of themselves, because they are spread over all the body by the veins, the bowels, the nerves, and bones. Nor could the seeds of the soul exercise those vibrations that produce sense, were they disposed at wide intervals, and enclosed by no solid body. They show those sensible motions because they are shut up close, which they cannot exert when they are forced out of the body into the wide air after death, because they are not under the same restraint as they are within the enclosure of the body; for the air would be an animal, if the soul could be confined within it, and maintain those motions of sense which before it exercised in the nerves and through the limbs.

You must confess therefore, over and over, that the mind and soul (for they both make up but one substance) must needs be dissolved, as soon as they are stripped of the covering of the body, and their vital powers thrown out into the thin air. Again, since the body cannot bear the separation of the soul, but it soon putrifies and stinks, how can you doubt but that the principles of the soul diffused through the whole body, and raised from the very inmost parts of it, flow out like smoke, and therefore the rotten body thus changed falls to pieces in so ruinous a manner, because the seeds of the soul, which preserved the whole, are moved widely from their place, and flow through the limbs, and all the winding passages of the body. And hence you are fully satisfied that the nature of the soul is spread over all the limbs, and is first broken and divided in the body itself, before it flies out into the air abroad.

Nay more! whilst the man is still living, the soul seems often to receive a violent shock, so that the limbs are dissolving all over, the face looking pale, as if it were real death, and all the members of the body wan and ghastly, falling to pieces. This happens in a swooning fit, when the soul is going, and trembles upon the verge of life, and all the faculties strive to hold fast the chain that binds up soul and body together. The mind and all the powers of the soul are then shaken, and are so staggered with the body, that a force a little stronger would drive it to utter dissolution. Do you doubt now whether this soul thrown out of the body, abroad, destitute, into the open air, stripped naked, be so far from remaining entire to eternal ages, that it cannot subsist so much as for the least moment? And then no dying man ever perceived his soul go out whole from all parts of the body at once, nor felt it first creeping up his throat, and then rising up to his jaws; but he finds it fail in that part of the body wherein it is placed, as he knows that every sense expires in its proper organ. But if this mind were immortal, it would not, when dying, complain of its being dissolved, but rather rejoice that it was going freely abroad, that it had thrown off his coat as a snake, or as an old stag that casts his heavy antlers.

And why is not the mind, with all its reason and conduct, produced in the head, the feet, the hands, but that every part is fixed to one place, and to a certain situation? If proper places were not appointed to all beings in which to be born, and when produced where they might abide, and where every member might be so conveniently disposed, that there might be no preposterous order of the limbs throughout the whole? So regularly does one thing follow another that fire is never raised from water, nor cold from heat. Besides, if the nature of the soul be immortal, and enjoys the power of sense when separated from the body, you must, as I conceive, supply her with the use of the five senses, nor can we imagine how without them the soul can live in the shades below. The painters and the poets, many ages ago, have represented the souls indued with sense, but neither eyes nor nose, nor hands nor tongue nor ears can be separately in the soul, nor can they separately retain any sense nor even be, without it.

Munro:

And since the mind is one part of a man which remains fixed in a particular spot, just as are the ears and eyes and the other senses which guide and direct life; and just as the hand or eye or nose when separated from us cannot feel and exist apart, but in however short a time wastes away in putrefaction, thus the mind cannot exist by itself without the body and the man’s self which as you see serves for the mind’s vessel or any thing else you choose to imagine which implies a yet closer union with it, since the body is attached to it by the nearest ties.

Again the quickened powers of body and mind by their joint partnership enjoy health and life; for the nature of the mind cannot by itself alone without the body give forth vital motions nor can the body again bereft of the soul continue to exist and make use of its senses: just, you are to know, as the eye, itself torn away from its roots, cannot see anything when apart from the whole body, thus the soul and, mind cannot, it is plain, do anything by themselves. Sure enough, because mixed up through veins and flesh, sinews and bones, their first-beginnings are confined by all the body and are not free to bound away leaving great spaces between, therefore thus shut in they make those sense-giving motions which they cannot make after death when forced out of the body into the air by reason that they are not then confined in a like manner; for the air will be a body and a living thing if the soul shall be able to keep itself together and to enclose in it those motions which it used before to perform in the sinews and within the body.

Moreover, even while it yet moves within the confines of life, often the soul shaken from some cause or other is seen to wish to pass out and be loosed from the whole body, the features are seen to droop as at the last hour and all the limbs to sink flaccid over the bloodless trunk: just as happens, when the phrase is used, the mind is in a bad way, or the soul is quite gone; when all is hurry and everyone is anxious to keep from parting the last tie of life; for then the mind and the power of the soul are shaken throughout and both are quite loosened together with the body; so that a cause somewhat more powerful can quite break them up. Why doubt, I would ask, that the soul when driven forth out of the body, when in the open air, feeble as it is, stripped of its covering, not only cannot continue through eternity, but is unable to hold together the smallest fraction of time?

Therefore, again and again I say, when the enveloping body has been all broken up and the vital airs have been forced out, you must admit that the senses of the mind and the soul are dissolved, since the cause of destruction is one and inseparable for both body and soul. Again since the body is unable to bear the separation of the soul without rotting away in a noisome stench, why doubt that the power of the soul gathering itself up from the inmost depths of body has oozed out and dispersed like smoke, and that the crumbling body has changed and tumbled in with so total a ruin for this reason because its foundations throughout are stirred from their places, the soul oozing out abroad through the frame, through all the winding passages which are in the body, and all openings? So that in ways manifold you may learn that the nature of the soul has been divided piecemeal and gone forth throughout the frame, and that it has been tom to shreds within the body, ere it glided forth and swam out into the air. For no one when dying appears to feel the soul go forth entire from his whole body or first mount up to the throat and gullet, but all feel it fail in that part which lies in a particular quarter; just as they know that the senses as well suffer dissolution each in its own place. But if our mind were immortal, it would not when dying complain so much of its dissolution, as of passing abroad and quitting its vesture, like a snake.

Again, why are the mind’s understanding and judgment never begotten in the head or feet or hands, but cling in all alike to one spot and fixed quarter, if it be not that particular places are assigned for the birth of everything, and [nature has determined] where each is to continue to exist after it is born? [Our body then must follow the same law] and have such a manifold organization of parts, that no perverted arrangement of its members shall ever show itself. So invariably effect follows cause, nor is flame wont to be born in rivers nor cold in fire. Again, if the nature of the soul is immortal and can feel when separated from our body, methinks we must suppose it to be provided with five senses; and in no other way can we picture to ourselves souls below flitting about Acheron. Painters therefore and former generations of writers have thus represented souls provided with senses. But neither eyes nor nose nor hand can exist for the soul apart from the body, nor can tongue, nor can ears perceive by the sense of hearing or exist for the soul by themselves apart from the body.

Bailey:

And since the mind is one part of man, which abides rooted in a place determined, just as are ears and eyes and all the other organs of sense which guide the helm of life; and, just as hand and eye or nostrils, sundered apart from us, cannot feel nor be, but in fact are in a short time melted in corruption, so the mind cannot exist by itself without the body and the very man, who seems to be, as it were, the vessel of the mind, or aught else you like to picture more closely bound to it, inasmuch as the body clings to it with binding ties.

Again, the living powers of body and mind prevail by union, one with the other, and so enjoy life; for neither without body can the nature of mind by itself alone produce the motions of life, nor yet bereft of soul can body last on and feel sensation. We must know that just as the eye by itself, if torn out by the roots, cannot discern anything apart from the whole body, so, it is clear, soul and mind by themselves have no power. Doubtless because in close mingling throughout veins and flesh, throughout sinews and bones, their first-beginnings are held close by all the body, nor can they freely leap asunder with great spaces between; and so shut in they make those sense-giving motions, which outside the body cast out into the breezes of air after death they cannot make, because they are not in the same way held together. For indeed air will be body, yea a living thing, if the soul can hold itself together, and confine itself to those motions, which before it made in the sinews and right within the body.

Wherefore, again and again, when the whole protection of the body is undone and the breath of life is driven without, you must needs admit that the sensations of the mind and the soul are dissolved, since the cause of life in soul and body is closely linked. Again, since the body cannot endure the severing of the soul, but that it decays with a foul stench, why do you doubt that the force of the soul has gathered together from deep down within, and has trickled out, scattering abroad like smoke, and that the body has changed and fallen crumbling in such great ruin, because its foundations have been utterly moved from their seat, as the soul trickles forth through the limbs, and through all the winding ways, which are in the body, and all the pores? So that in many ways you may learn that the nature of the soul issued through the frame sundered in parts, and that even within the body it was rent in pieces in itself, before it slipped forth and swam out into the breezes of air.

Nay more, while it moves still within the limits of life, yet often from some cause the soul seems to be shaken and to move, and to wish to be released from the whole body; the face seems to grow flaccid, as at the hour of death, and all the limbs to fall limp on the bloodless trunk. Even so it is, when, as men say, the heart has had a shock, or the heart has failed; when all is alarm, and one and all struggle to clutch at the last link to life. For then the mind is shaken through and through, and all the power of the soul, and both fall in ruin with the body too; so that a cause a whit stronger might bring dissolution. Why do you doubt after all this but that the soul, if driven outside the body, frail as it is, without in the open air, robbed of its shelter, would not only be unable to last on through all time, but could not hold together even for a moment?

For it is clear that no one, as he dies, feels his soul going forth whole from all his body, nor coming up first to the throat and the gullet up above, but rather failing in its place in a quarter determined; just as he knows that the other senses are dissolved each in their own place. But if our mind were immortal, it would not at its death so much lament that it was dissolved, but rather that it went forth and left its slough, as does a snake.

Again, why is the understanding and judgement of the mind never begotten in head or feet or hands, but is fixed for all men in one abode in a quarter determined, except that places determined are assigned to each thing for its birth, and in which each several thing can abide when it is created, that so it may have its manifold parts arranged that never can the order of its limbs be seen reversed? So surely does one thing follow on another, nor is flame wont to be born of flowing streams, nor cold to be conceived in fire. Moreover, if the nature of the soul is immortal and can feel when sundered from our body, we must, I trow, suppose it endowed with five senses. Nor in any other way can we picture to ourselves the souls wandering in the lower world of Acheron. And so painters and the former generations of writers have brought before us souls thus endowed with senses. Yet neither eyes nor nose nor even hand can exist for the soul apart from body, nor again tongue apart or ears; the souls cannot therefore feel by themselves or even exist.

Ha -- Absolutely a LOT of sense to argue with me, if and when I am wrong, and I can be wrong plenty often!

The picture of Epicurus is purely personal preference, so not really a wrong or right there, but as to the quote, I definitely want you to let us know if you find a reliable source that attributes that to Epicurus. We've run up on that one before, however, so I am pretty sure it cannot be documented. The look of the banner is that it came from one of those quote accumulation websites, and those can be woefully inaccurate, even sometimes mixing Epicurus with Epictetus. I think that's whats going on here, but PLEASE let me know if you find out otherwise!

TimRobbe -- I just went there to subscribe, and I did, but I do have a suggestion: That picture you have in the "banner" has that graphic of Epicurus which I think most people agree was an artist conception by someone who did not know his true appearance, so you might want to consider whether that is a version you want to use. I've always personally found that to be considerably less attractive than his real appearance, but more than personal preference, the ancient Epicureans seem to have put a lot of focus on busts of Epicurus as recruiting and communication tools, so it's probably always best to pay attention to how he looks in representations like that.

Also, I think you're going to find that that "abundance" quote is spurious and cannot be documented to have been stated by Epicurus himself. I personally think too that it has a much more Stoic than Epicurean ring to it, so I think you might want to review pretty much every aspect of that banner.

On the other hand, the "icon" itself with the bust of Epicurus is excellent!

I have to apologize for bringing these to your attention because I always want to be as supportive as possible to anyone who takes initiatives like you are doing. However I think that's the reason we collaborate at places like this, where we can help each other! If you find I am incorrect about the picture, or about the quote, please be sure to post back in this thread.

Thanks again for posting and setting up the twitter feed!

Thanks TimRobbe! I set up a new thread for this so that it will get more attention.

Episode Forty-Three of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available.
As always we invite your comments and suggestions.

Note: As of the fall of 2020 this thread is now obsolete, as I have satisfied myself that Frances Wright definitely wrote the book herself, for reasons discussed in this thread: What Evidence Do We Have That Frances Wright Personally Was An Epicurean?

Also, Don, from the end of the letter to Pythocles, there is that pesky word "feelings" again!

Quote

And most of all give yourself up to the study of the beginnings and of infinity and of the things akin to them, and also of the criteria of truth and of the feelings, and of the purpose for which we reason out these things.

For these points when they are thoroughly studied will most easily enable you to understand the causes of the details.

But those who have not thoroughly taken these things to heart could not rightly study them in themselves, nor have they made their own the reason for observing them.

Very similar, but from the letter to Pythocles - maybe a variation of the translation of this is what I am thinking about that we don't need a general theory of everything?

The fact that this sentiment is included in both Herodotus and Pythocles is surely a measure of its importance to Epicurus:

Quote

First of all then we must not suppose that any other object is to be gained from the knowledge of the phenomena of the sky, whether they are dealt with in connection with other doctrines or independently, than peace of mind and a sure confidence, just as in all other branches of study.

We must not try to force an impossible explanation, nor employ a method of inquiry like our reasoning either about the modes of life or with respect to the solution of other physical problems: witness such propositions as that ‘the universe consists of bodies and the intangible,’ or that ‘the elements are indivisible,' and all such statements in circumstances where there is only one explanation which harmonizes with phenomena.

For this is not so with the things above us: they admit of more than one cause of coming into being and more than one account of their nature which harmonizes with our sensations.

For we must not conduct scientific investigation by means of empty assumptions and arbitrary principles, but follow the lead of phenomena: for our life has not now any place for irrational belief and groundless imaginings, but we must live free from trouble.

Now all goes on without disturbance as far as regards each of those things which may be explained in several ways so as to harmonize with what we perceive, when one admits, as we are bound to do, probable theories about them.

But when one accepts one theory and rejects another, which harmonizes as well with the phenomenon, it is obvious that he altogether leaves the path of scientific inquiry and has recourse to myth.

Display More

As usual I think of a quote but can't find it. It seems like it ought to be right here in this section of Herodotus, but this doesn't seem to be what I am thinking of:

Quote

Furthermore, we must believe that to discover accurately the cause of the most essential facts is the function of the science of nature, and that blessedness for us in the knowledge of celestial phenomena lies in this and in the understanding of the nature of the existences seen in these celestial phenomena, and of all else that is akin to the exact knowledge requisite for our happiness: in knowing too that what occurs in several ways or is capable of being otherwise has no place here but that nothing which suggests doubt or alarm can be included at all in that which is naturally immortal and blessed.

Now this we can ascertain by our mind is absolutely the case.

But what falls within the investigation of risings and settings and turnings and eclipses, and all that is akin to this, is no longer of any value for the happiness which knowledge brings, but persons who have perceived all this, but yet do not know what are the natures of these things and what are the essential causes, are still in fear, just as if they did not know these things at all: indeed, their fear may be even greater, since the wonder which arises out of the observation of these things cannot discover any solution or realize the regulation of the essentials.

And for this very reason, even if we discover several causes for turnings and settings and risings and eclipses and the like, as has been the case already in our investigation of detail, we must not suppose that our inquiry into these things has not reached sufficient accuracy to contribute to our peace of mind and happiness.

So we must carefully consider in how many ways a similar phenomenon is produced on earth, when we reason about the causes of celestial phenomena and all that is imperceptible to the senses; and we must despise those persons who do not recognize either what exists or comes into being in one way only, or that which may occur in several ways in the case of things which can only be seen by us from a distance, and further are not aware under what conditions it is impossible to have peace of mind.

If, therefore, we think that a phenomenon probably occurs in some such particular way, and that in circumstances under which it is equally possible for us to be at peace, when we realize that it may occur in several ways, we shall be just as little disturbed as if we know that it occurs in some particular way.

Display More

But I think this is worth quoting in regard to what we're discussing about Aristotle.

Quote from Don

One thing that attracts me to him is his penchant for assembling information and research from as many sources as possible. From what I know, he invented entire fields of science, especially biology. That appeals to me: the research-oriented aspect of Aristotle. He based a lot of his "science" work on observation.

And that very aspect I think bleeds over into what Frances Wright was characterizing as "pedantry" / excessive attention to detail.

It's interesting to compare that to the drift of the statement - where is it? the letter to Herodotus? - to the effect that we don't need a general theory of everything, but a theory that allows us to live happily. I don't want to overgeneralize here, but I can see the outline of a response to Aristotle in that remark, to the effect that the important thing is to grasp "the big picture" rather than pursuing details so doggedly that you don't seem to ever assemble the details into a correct view of the big picture.

No doubt (at least from what I have read) that Epicurus' views were a lot closer to Aristotle than to Plato, but I get the general sense, especially in reading Cicero's "On Ends," that the ancients themselves saw Arisotle as derivative from Plato and essentially a continuation of the Platonic school, rather than as a profound leader of his own school.

But as with you Don I am certainly no expert on Aristotle so my thoughts are necessarily of limited value, limited to what we can draw on as the impressions we have of him, which may not be at all accurate to the facts.

But its interesting to think about whether Epicurus might have held that Aristotle's "idea that eudaimonia is largely dependent on luck and one's station in life is elitist and not much help to society at large. His focus on virtue and fulfilling your telos seems ill-suited to people finding his philosophy useful" in fact may have resulted from his "excessive attention to detail" at the expense of processing the big picture from the details that were readily at hand when he started.

Yes Don I think that is the direction. It might also help to discuss this in greater detail:

Quote from Don

This is the aspect that makes me still eye Aristotle as an alternative.

What aspect of Aristotle has come to your attention that you find potentially attractive? Possibly in discussing the details of that attractiveness we would also be able to highlight the differences.

Every time I have tried to read Aristotle I have found his formulations to be highly unsatisfying, and I think Frances Wright was probably correct in accusing Aristotle of "pedantry":

From her Chapter 15 of A Few Days In Athens:

Quote

“It might seem strange,” said Metrodorus, “that the pedantry of Aristotle should find so many imitators, and his dark sayings so many believers, in a city, too, now graced and enlightened by the simple language, and simple doctrines of an Epicurus. — But the language of truth is too simple for inexperienced ears. We start in search of knowledge, like the demigods of old in search of adventure, prepared to encounter giants, to scale mountains, to pierce into Tartarean gulfs, and to carry off our prize from the grip of some dark enchanter, invulnerable to all save to charmed weapons and deity-gifted assailants. To find none of all these things, but, in their stead, a smooth road through a pleasant country, with a familiar guide to direct our curiosity, and point out the beauties of the landscape, disappoints us of all exploit and all notoriety; and our vanity turns but too often from the fair and open champaigne, into error’s dark labyrinths, where we mistake mystery for wisdom, pedantry for knowledge, and prejudice for virtue.”

Quote

the whole fabric must be ill-shaped, declining, hanging over, leaning and irregular, so that some parts will seem ready to fall and tumble down, because the whole was at first disordered by false principles.

In accord with the frequent pattern of using repetition for emphasis, I think that last passage I quoted in the post above is probably a mirror of this passage, and this one too should be read as sweeping in effect, something like:

"So the whole structure of our life will necessarily be ill-shaped, declining, hanging over, leaning, and irregular, so that some parts will seem ready to fall and tumble down, if we erect the structure of our life in a disorderly manner based on a false understanding of the way our canonical faculties work."

Quote

So the reason of things must of necessity be wrong and false which is founded upon a false representation of the senses.

I am thinking that that sentence must be intended to be sweeping in effect, meaning something like:

"So our opinions about the most important issues of life must of necessity be wrong and false if they are founded upon a false understanding of the nature and limits of the canonical faculties."

Quote from Don

...we use our initial reaction as *one* criteria in concert with others + reason to bring it all together.

Am I getting closer?

Yes I think that is exactly the point, and I think that's also the answer to any concerns that anyone has about the "spiritual" experiences being discussed in the reverence and awe threads. The feelings are real and must be accounted for, but not by holding opinions that cannot be validated through a reasoned analysis of all the evidence available to us through all of the faculties.

"Spiritual" experiences are real in the sense that they describe real feelings which are occurring. But at the same time, we have all sorts of other evidence to consider as well regarding the nature of the universe, the absence of supernatural universe-creating gods, and the like. ALL the evidence has to be factored in so that we arrive at a reasoned opinion about the subject we're talking about. The reasoned opinion we end up with must acknowledge the reality of the feeling, but it must also acknowledge the reality of the other data, with the result being that no matter how intense the spiritual feeling we aren't going to throw out the evidence received through the other faculties.

And there you arrive at the conclusion that there are some times when we just have no reasonable alternative but to "wait" because we cannot come to an acceptable theory that incorporates all the evidence to our satisfaction. The only irreversible error would be to throw out some of the data and treat it as if it did not exist, because ruling out the reliability of any of the legs of the canon will thereby mean that our error can never be properly corrected. [Edit: And that is why I do not think it is proper to "throw out" the data of any experience, whether we call it 'spiritual' or whatever. If we experience it, something caused it, and it is far better to look patiently for the cause than to throw out the experience as if it did not happen.]

From Book 4, what i think is quite possibly the most important passage in Lucretius (and this version is an example of why I find Browne 1743 to be frequently the best in the deepest sections):

Quote

And though reason is not able to assign a cause why an object that is really four-square when near, should appear round when seen at a distance; yet, if we cannot explain this difficulty, it is better to give any solution, even a false one, than to deliver up all Certainty out of our power, to break in upon our first principle of belief, and tear up all foundations upon which our life and security depend. For not only all reason must be overthrown, but life itself must be immediately extinguished, unless you give credit to your senses. These direct you to fly from a precipice and other evils of this sort which are to be avoided, and to pursue what tends to your security. All therefore is nothing more than an empty parade of words that can be offered against the certainty of sense.

Lastly, as in a building, if the principle rule of the artificer be not true, if his line be not exact, or his level bear in to the least to either side, every thing must needs be wrong and crooked, the whole fabric must be ill-shaped, declining, hanging over, leaning and irregular, so that some parts will seem ready to fall and tumble down, because the whole was at first disordered by false principles. So the reason of things must of necessity be wrong and false which is founded upon a false representation of the senses.

Even in this passage, and especially in that last sentence, I think we could probably better translate. "So the reason of things must of necessity be wrong and false which is founded upon a false representation of the senses" seems to me to be another statement of giving credence to all legs of the canon as in PD24 quoted above, rather than 'false representation of the senses' which seems a little too narrow. Likewise I think all of this passage should be read to refer to all three legs of the canon and not just seeing/hearing/tasting/touching/smelling.

Certainly the five senses are the first that come to mind, but the other two legs are of equal or at times superior concern to us. Pleasure and pain give us the motivations for life itself, and preconceptions also (depending on the various asserted definitions) appear to be essential to proper living. For example, there are times when we will in fact jump off that precipice, or step in front of the oncoming carriage, if such an action enables us to save the life of a friend in a situation where to do otherwise would poison our choice to live on having failed to do so,

Quote from Don

Light bulb! So, we don't rely on reason alone. We use it but we use it as a tool as an adjunct or complement to the Canonical senses once we've taken in available information or evidence from them.

If someone says "I feel the earth is flat. That feels true to me" that doesn't mean anything. What do your senses tell you? If the concept of a flat earth brings you Pleasure, what do your senses tell you including what scientific senses tell us through telescopes and discs travel. What do our mental senses tell us? What does our understanding of the universe tell us?

How does that sound?

I agree with most of that, but I would be careful about "If someone says "I feel the earth is flat. That feels true to me" that doesn't mean anything."

Were you to apply that strictly, you would be telling yourself to ignore the feeling of pleasure that you are hypothesizing that person received from the 'feeling that the world is flat' that you posit he is having. (I think of necessity what you are talking about there is an opinion rather than strictly a feeling alone.)

I don't think you should ever say that any data point should be 'ignored' -- it would be better to incorporate that data point into your understanding of your thought processes so that you accounted for having experienced that feeling of pleasure and thereby learned from it. If the experience was pleasurable then you will be naturally inclined to repeat it, but you need to learn that you can't expect to repeat it by expecting the world to prove to be flat by walking far enough in the same direction.

Maybe you can come to understand what it was in the experience that led to the feeling of pleasure, and maybe you can find other ways to experience that same pleasure, for example in reading fiction or otherwise recognizing that the belief in a flat earth is imaginary but for some reason brings you pleasure.

The point of course being that we need to incorporate this overall principle:

Quote

24. If you reject any single sensation, and fail to distinguish between the conclusion of opinion, as to the appearance awaiting confirmation, and that which is actually given by the sensation or feeling, or each intuitive apprehension of the mind, you will confound all other sensations, as well, with the same groundless opinion, so that you will reject every standard of judgment. And if among the mental images created by your opinion you affirm both that which awaits confirmation, and that which does not, you will not escape error, since you will have preserved the whole cause of doubt in every judgment between what is right and what is wrong.

Don you and I just cross-posted so I did not see your last post before my longer response above...