Posts by Cassius

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

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

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

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

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

Now on to the second book of lectures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Display More

Continuing on:

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

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

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

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

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

:

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

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

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

Thank you!

Quote from Susan Hill

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

Wow THAT sounds weird!

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

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

Quote from Susan Hill

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

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

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

Simmias' attunement analogy^[5]

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

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

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

Thus, Simmias' argument cannot be upheld.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DC:

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

Elayne:

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

AT:

Why is ‘not thinking abstractly’ an Epicurean quality?

I enjoy planning my life to maximise pleasure.

This involves a great deal of abstract thinking.

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

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

Martin:

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

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

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

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

Cassius to A.T.:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does anyone have nominations besides Roger Penrose and Victor Stenger?

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

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

No Big Bang? Quantum Equation Predicts Universe Had No Beginning

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

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

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.