Posts by Cassius

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

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

Does anyone have nominations besides Roger Penrose and Victor Stenger?

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

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

No Big Bang? Quantum Equation Predicts Universe Had No Beginning

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

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

Godfrey what I don't know because I haven't taken the time to read is whether Victor Stenger really grapples with quantum physics theory. Do you recall?

Don I am thinking we are talking mainly about the famous line from Lucretius book 1, where the latin is clearly "religio."

Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum

Yes that wikipedia article goes into what I would expect the issue to be: What does "positive" mean? Why use the word "positive" rather than 'pleasure"? Do they resolve "positive" as meaning things beyond pleasure? And yes according to this they head right back into the "virtue ethics" issues that seem to characterize humanism. And to these extent these categories are accepted as ends in themselves, this would definitely appear to be an Aristotelian, rather than Epicurean, approach:

Thank you Don! I always appreciate the thoroughness of sources that reprint a facsimile of the text itself so we can see visually how much fragmentation and how much reconstruction is involved.

Yes Susan I think this viewpoint is VERY widespread. At various times in the past we have had people come through the Epicurean groups who are very "into" the physics aspect, and some of them have been very helpful in opposing these conclusions. I get the impression from discussions a couple of years ago that Victor Stenger might be a writer who goes in a more Epicurean direction, but I am not sure. At the present time we have Martin who has a lot of interest in this area, but perhaps not so much on the ultimate theoretical conclusions and definitely without enough time to devote to writing some in-depth material on it. Scattered about in other threads here, which I would have to go looking for to find, I've posted about articles here and there which might point in a more positive direction, but I haven't had the expertise, time, or motivation to pull anything together.

I will stake out the position, however, that I think we have here an issue that is deeper than just quantum physics itself. It seems to me that there are clear parallels between what we confront today and what Epicurus faced in certain aspects of Platonism or Pythagoreanism, in which "advanced mathematics" and/or geometry were being used to advance theistic theories that Epicurus felt compelled to respond against. It's my view that this is why we have the texts preserve the debate about the size of the sun, and why Epicurus chose to accept what he interpreted to be the evidence of the senses rather than accept the claims made by the geometricians.

So there's a great opportunity for someone who really wants to dig into this to explore at length some really fascinating material, but it's a big project that will take a certain type of person to accomplish. In the meantime, however, we do need to develop more approachable explanations for why the most extravagant claims made by these guys need to be dismissed without letting them worry us.

That's why I quoted that phrase from Lucian and I do think it is exactly applicable.

I am not familiar with a specific school of psychology known as "Positive Psyschology." I know from a private message that Godfrey has an article that we might want to post here, but maybe someone knows a more representative link that would explain the issue.

Is this wikipedia article a decent start? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_psychology

If so, it might occupy an uneasy middle ground between Epicurus and Aristotle and/or Humanism, and it seems those ultimately resolve in favor of the non-Epicurean approach because they insist on gravitating toward "meaningfulness" rather than "pleasure." "Eudaemonia" and "flourishing" seem to always end up being Aristotelian.

Quote

Positive psychology is concerned with eudaimonia, "the good life" or flourishing, living according to what holds the greatest value in life – the factors that contribute the most to a well-lived and fulfilling life. While not attempting a strict definition of the good life, positive psychologists agree that one must live a happy, engaged, and meaningful life in order to experience "the good life.” Martin Seligman referred to "the good life" as "using your signature strengths every day to produce authentic happiness and abundant gratification".^[7]

Quote from Susan Hill

The Garden! Organization is not the offence.

I agree that organization is not the offense, and I agree with the implication that aspects of the organization and/or rituals that the Epicureans probably developed would be hard to distinguish from a "religion."

It seems to me that Epicurus is clearly holding that "gods" of a certain type exist, and that it is important to have a correct understanding and attitude and approach toward them, so if someone wants to call that "understanding and attitude and approach" a "religion" then that might be understandable, the way we use the term "religion" today.

So i put this issue in the category of issues for which Epicurus is using a word in a way that we aren't familiar with today, so we just have to approach it carefully. I forget where the reference is but I recall that one of the Cicero texts documents that people complained about Epicurus doing that even in his own time (at least Cicero's time). Surely he's doing the same thing with "gods" and he's probably doing the same thing with "virtue," and most of all he seems to be doing the same thing with "pleasure" and even "pain" when he starts with his two categories of feelings that include all the individual types of feelings.

Since words are not held to be "magical" or connected to platonic ideal forms in Epicurean theory, and Epicurus was taking a different position on issues of the method of approaching "definitions" there's nothing "wrong" with Epicurus doing that, but it means we have to be very careful because we're used to using those words in different ways.

Don I hope I have not misunderstood your reference. I have a PDF of the Polytheism article where the clip above comes from, but I do also have A PDF of the Chilton translation of Festugière, and a hard copy of Chilton's book on Diogenes of Oinoanda, so I may have botched my reference above.

A friend of mine recently sent me this video link below. The first 11 minutes or so is a simplified restatement of what is supposedly current science. I have no way of knowing whether it is accurate or not, but regardless of that, once they get to about the 12 minute mark, they begin to assert that quantum physics establishes that mind creates reality, I think they are way over any line of reasonableness. After the 12 minute mark it gets worse and worse. The further you go the clearer it is that the purpose of the video from the beginning was to advocate such "mind over matter" assertions pointing to theism and/or Platonic idealism.

This is pretty much the beginning of what I object to around 12:22, but it gets a lot worse:

pasted-from-clipboard.png

And this is the full video:

I have seen this kind of reasoning alluded to many times before, and one of these days I would like to see if we can produce something in response to materials of this type and perhaps this one in particular.

My general expectation is that much of the observational data explained in the first part of the video is accurately reported, but that the conclusions drawn from those observations are not the only ones that can be drawn, and because those conclusions conflict with other aspects of human reality, those conclusions are invalid.

I ran this by Martin, and he suggested that I be sure to note "that we are not interested in wasting our time to debate/refute every nonsense which is out there, but we want to make sure that our friends are aware of such examples of science being misrepresented by charlatans to fool people into believing nonsense."

I know that only a limited subset of people here at Epicureanfriends.com are motivated to pursue this issue, and probably a smaller number of those are qualified to attack it with any legitimate expectations of producing a thorough refutation.

But one of the purposes of this forum is to "group-source" the work that needs to be done in keeping people from being led astray by false philosophies, and surely issues involving Physics are uniquely of interest to those raised in Lucretius and the details of Epicurean philosophy. So with that I'll launch the thread and hope over time we can develop a productive approach to responding to things of this type.

At the very least, perhaps we can begin to compile a list of sources and/or authorities (Victor Stenger?) who are ahead of us in responding to these assertions.

In the meantime, here is a quote from Lucian's "Aristotle the Oracle-Monger" which seems appropriate:

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.

Hmm-- I clipped that off the version that I had downloaded some time ago. Looks like I downloaded it in 2016 but I confess I can't remember where I got it! pasted-from-clipboard.png
I went through a period downloading a lot from Jstor, but this looks more like a version from Academia because I don't see any identifying markings on my original.

As for German, I know Martin has limited time, but he's been very helpful with some translation work in the past.

Yes thank you for this Don! I had the pdf in my collection but can't recall if I have read it. Might as well clip and paste the key letter here. It certainly seems to me to be consistent with Epicurus, though I have no way of commenting on whether it was Epicurus himself who wrote this, or another Epicurean:

This kind of argument seems very sincere to me as a logical extension of his views. Discussion like this is a large part of the reason that I think Epicurus was serious about this view, rather than just creating a screen to protect himself from sanctions against blasphemy.

Joshua it may now be up to you to get us back on track (after my digressions) with some analysis and reflection. Have we made any progress on unwinding the issues you were thinking about in the original post?

Quote from Godfrey

harmonica as a form of breath work.

HA! That reminds me i have one of these aging uselessly in a corner! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didgeridoo

Health benefits A 2005 study reported in the British Medical Journal found that learning and practising the didgeridoo helped reduce snoring and obstructive sleep apnea by strengthening muscles in the upper airway, thus reducing their tendency to collapse during sleep. In the study, intervention subjects were trained in and practiced didgeridoo playing, including circular breathing and other techniques. Control subjects were asked not to play the instrument. Subjects were surveyed before and after the study period to assess the effects of intervention.[33] A small 2010 study noted improvements in the asthma management of Aboriginal teens when incorporating didgeridoo playing.[34]

Those are great points, and spoken by someone who has not only direct experience but who truly knows the meaning of "a bird in hand"!

I have always wanted to learn an instrument too, and I have some friends whose children are specializing in bagpipes, but to be honest it would never occur to me to pick bagpipes as a first instrument. Is there any relevance to this conversation to include how, of all instruments, you chose bagpipes?

Every time I tried to pick up anything (mainly piano/keyboards) I gave up in abject failure. I suppose I had an easier time with the calculus of "continue or stop" rather than "start this new project."

THIS is what I think, one thousand times over!

Quote

On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of the pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same as saying through shrinking from toil and pain.

AMEN TORQUATUS!

Again - I think the anger should not really be directed as much as those who by mistake make errors in these calculations, but at the commentators who take Epicurus and turn Epicurus into an advocate for this kind of degeneracy. They aren't acting on stupidity or "weakness of will," they are acting on the conscious choice to embrace corruption!

Yes I agree Don, and we're totally together. I think that OUGHT to be a relatively non-controversial point, but it's definitely worth making.

The other point is the controversial one. I just saw this below cross my email and I see it as another example of the problem:

Written this way, Okeefe is implying that Epicurus taught we should prioritize and even go exclusively for the "natural and necessary pleasures." I totally reject that interpretation with more energy every time I confront it

The use of the categories is for ANALYSIS of the likelihood that a potential choice of action is going to come at a price of higher or lesser pain. BUT THAT ALONE DOES NOT TELL US WHETHER TO CHOOSE THAT COURSE OF ACTION OR NOT!

WE have to decide, based on our own view of obtaining the most pleasure at a cost in pain we agree to be worthwhile, what course to choose. We WILL sometimes choose pain, or avoid current pleasure, in order to achieve greater pleasure as the result.

If we don't make that EMPHATICALLY CLEAR then Okeefe's formulation is a prescription for disaster -- the equivalent of pilot nosediving his plan into the ground for the sake of making sure that his total net future pain is the least possible.

Every time I think about this stuff the angrier I get -- not, of course, at anyone here, but at these professional commentators. They have turned the modern understanding of Epicurus into Stoicism, or frankly, even worse than Stoicism, because the Stoics at least seem to think that virtue is a worthwhile goal. Painlessness for the sake of painlessness is just pure abject cowardice and its degeneracy is difficult to overstate.

So in terms of Joshua's precise question this is where I see the heart of it:

Quote from JJElbert

I myself have this same nagging feeling sometimes; if not for video games, I could have really learned Latin or Greek, mastered an instrument, improved my drawing, made tons more friends, explored the natural world, written a book, read hundreds more books, gone to the gym everyday—and on it goes. The pleasure of something I enjoy, soured by the anxiety of leisure.

Only Joshua can answer that for himself, but if in fact it was or is attainable for Joshua to achieve some of those other goals, and if in fact Joshua would experience greater pleasure from those goals than from the video games, then "yes" it would be proper to evaluate at least some amount of the time spent on video games as a less than optimum use of Joshua's time. I'll avoid the word "waste" as having more implications than might be appropriate, but I think "less than optimum" would clearly be applicable. We only have a limited and short time to live, and if we are truly setting our goal as the most pleasurable life that is possible to us, then in fact we should pursue the most pleasurable life that is possible to us.

OK I apologize for being slow, because I think we need to discuss THIS aspect, as possibly the most important aspect of all -- or at least the most urgent for us to consider:

Is it possible to "waste time" pursuing something that is a pleasure, or is fun?

My answer would be OF COURSE YES ---- IF by engaging in that pleasure you deprive yourself of something that is a GREATER PLEASURE TO YOU.

This is probably near the root of the entire travesty of modern commentators saying that "painlessness" was Epicurus' true goal. Why would anyone accept "painlessness" as their identification of the good, when they have the opportunity to experience "the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain?" That's the reason the texts have this statement: "We are inquiring, then, what is the final and ultimate Good, which as all philosophers are agreed must be of such a nature as to be the End to which all other things are means, while it is not itself a means to anything else. This Epicurus finds in pleasure; pleasure he holds to be the Chief Good, pain the Chief Evil." As well as: "And for this cause we call pleasure the beginning and end of the blessed life. For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good. And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided."

Why would you accept spending a lifetime eating bread and water when you have the opportunity to eat and drink things that you find much more pleasurable, and you can do that without incurring pain that you find to be too high a price to pay? "And again independence of desire we think a great good — not that we may at all times enjoy but a few things, but that, if we do not possess many, we may enjoy the few in the genuine persuasion that those have the sweetest pleasure in luxury who least need it, and that all that is natural is easy to be obtained, but that which is superfluous is hard."

That's the issue we have to confront -- accepting less pleasure than is possible, when that pleasure does not cost in pain more than we are willing to pay - I submit we should consider to be a huge mistake -- and indeed a "waste of time."

More Torquatus, stating this explicitly:

In a free hour, when our power of choice is untrammelled and when nothing prevents our being able to do what we like best, every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain avoided. But in certain emergencies and owing to the claims of duty or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains.