Posts by Cassius

Quote from Godfrey

But I ramble. I'm with you in hoping that somebody who has seriously studied this subject unpacks this at some point!

As for who that person might be, I am not sure that it will necessarily be someone who spends a lifetime studying physics.

I was thinking about this again tonight and it seems to me that we have to think about what kind of proof would be required for us to say that the questions is really settled. Given our human nature would/will/should we ever accept anything less on any question other than "I know because I was there and I saw/experienced it for myself" from someone we deem to be trustworthy?

Which, if so, is obviously never going to happen in astronomy, or in issues like what happened XXX number of billion years ago. We can't even really gain a lot of confidence nowadays about many aspects of what happened 50 years ago, and you could lower the number of years to a lot less than that.

So given the difficulties and the inherent limitations of our lack of personal experience, we probably do have to start with issues of "epistemology." That's an area which we don't have nearly the amount of Epicurean texts that once existed, and which we need to reconstruct to the best of our ability based on what's left and probably a thorough analysis of the method of thinking presented in Lucretius.

Which leads me back to confirming my personal opinion that I really don't want to get too strung out taking specific positions on what physics theories or theorists might be persuasive prospects or dead ends before we really have a good statement of the level and type of proof - the rules of evidence - that we should bring to the entire discussion. Getting too wrapped up in details before addressing that bigger picture probably just leads to endless dispute and even hard feelings, neither of which help anything and leave us worse off than when we started.

But that leaves us back with the question of what to do in the meantime, and back to such basic issues as "trusting the senses" and what to do and how to think in the absence of evidence that is conflicting and/or simply not sufficient. And there are good Epicurean texts that need to be brought to bear on those questions, including:

22. We must consider both the real purpose, and all the evidence of direct perception, to which we always refer the conclusions of opinion; otherwise, all will be full of doubt and confusion.

23. If you fight against all sensations, you will have no standard by which to judge even those of them which you say are false.

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.

25. If on each occasion, instead of referring your actions to the end of nature, you turn to some other, nearer, standard, when you are making a choice or an avoidance, your actions will not be consistent with your principles.

Very interesting. It will take someone a lot smarter than me to unwind all this, and I hope others will do so in the future. But given that summary I would expect Epicurus a position something like the following:

If Gleiser's conclusion motivates people to say

(1) "i don't know whether the universe popped into existence from nothing," rather than

(2) "the 'best' evidence of the senses is that nothing comes from nothing, I have to live by my senses, and I am going to take as persuasive that the universe as a whole is eternal because nothing comes from nothing."

.... then probably Epicurus would, and probably explicitly did in the form it existed in his day, hold that Geiser's theories would be logically invalid. I would expect him to see them as unverifiable though sensory evidence, and contradictory to the readily available evidence that everything we see around us comes from something else, and thus that Glieser's position is damaging to the confidence of virtually all humans in their ability to live happily, and thus not a position to be encouraged.

Ultimately I think that's where this debate ends up. No matter how elaborate the theory, there is not going to be satisfactory "proof" of an answer indicating that it is not eternal, while substantial evidence for eternality is within the grasp of every ordinary human being. Some people may legitimately prefer to go through life holding "i don't know" because it gives them pleasure to contemplate "unanswerable" questions. I think we have plenty of evidence that there are many such people.

But "ordinary" people in order to have confidence in their place in the universe and their decisions on how to live want to choose from what appears to them to be the most persuasive of the possibly valid options, and I would think that Epicurus would and did encourage them not to undermine their worldview by pursuing logical constructs that contradict readily available evidence that may not be as complete as we would like (we haven't lived forever to see it) but which is totally consistent for the duration of our own ability to reliably observe.

I would expect Epicurus to argue that his position is both (1) the most logically sound, if we properly apply reasonable rules of evidence to what is allowable in the debate, and (2) the most consistent with the goal of living happily, which requires that we not believe in supernatural / arbitrary theories absent the most compelling of evidence in their favor. And he would not admit that choice (2) amounts to choosing happiness over "truth" because he would argue that the logical arguments in favor of taking the "I don't know" position about the ultimate question are unsound.

Godfrey as you can probably tell I am just summarizing more my general conclusions about this subject to date more than anything else. I really appreciate your taking the time to read and summarize those two books!

Since I posted this thread, I'd like to add how impressed and appreciative I am of all the work and success of this project. There need to be more of these, and more often, and in more places and languages. The Athens group has done tremendous work for many years now to put on these regular seminars and organize regular activity to discuss Epicurus.

At the same time, I should note that I am think the emphasis of the final paragraph is misplaced. It always bothers me to see summaries about Epicurus that do not use the word "pleasure," and I think this summary misses the mark fairly widely about what the message of Epicurus really stands for. The first sentence here is A-OK. The second sentence, however, identifies Epicurean philosophy with "humanism," which as discussed in many places on this website I believe to be incorrect. Part of the problem is that "happy life" is a term that can mean so many different things to different people, and failing to place "happiness" in the context of "pleasure" is a sure way to increase rather than reduce confusion about the unique aspects of Epicurean philosophy. Further, and most unfortunately, the final sentence would lead someone to believe that the ultimate enemy of Epicurus is "prosperity."

Quote

The 10th Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy has offered to hundreds of Greeks with a need for learning and a desire for a better world to experience the timeless utility of the Epicurean philosophy, which offers a mental shield to putative individual and social deadlocks. The scientific, humanistic and psychotherapeutic message of Epicurus on one hand expresses the simplest and most profound way of approaching a happy life with friendship and solidarity, even in difficult times, and on the other hand it differs fundamentally from the fashionable superficial message of "prosperity” propagated in Greece and internationally.

Surely the ultimate enemy of Epicurus is not "prosperity," for multitudes of reasons, but I don't intend this post to turn into a major statement on the subject. For now I'll just quote the following:

VS63: Frugality too has a limit, and the man who disregards it is like him who errs through excess.

Letter to Menoeceus: "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 enjoy luxury 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."

Ultimately I suspect that this final paragraph was written with the thought of appealing to an audience that might attend a seminar that has "practical" implications, rather than just academic discussion, and I can understand and appreciate that motivation. But it seems to me that the issues involved in truly understanding Epicurus require that we see the philosophy outside the box of modern political terminology, and keeping it attached to those conventional boxes does not seem to me to be the best way to achieve that goal. Discussing Epicurus in terms of political goals will be of interest to those who are primarily concerned with political goals, but the deepest message of Epicurus far transcends temporary economic and political issues. 

Thank you Michele!

Wow that looks great! It would be so nice to get access to any of their handouts or materials that they use.

Godfrey can you summarize Gleiser's conclusion as to whether the universe is at bottom eternal in time?

Comments on several quotes:

What the HECK is the basis for THIS? Sounds like just gossip for the sake of effect to me -

Quote from Charles

The courtesan Leontium became his mistress as well as his pupil, and found him as jealous a mate as if he had secured her by due process of law. Under his influence she had one child and wrote several books, whose purity of style did not interfere with her morals.

OK, as to this one, yes partly correct, but why not mention first, or at least in passing, that he disliked supernatural religion because he believe it to be FALSE, and not just on pragmatic grounds?

Quote from Charles

He dislikes religion because, he thinks, it thrives on ignorance, promotes it, and darkens life with the terror of celestial spies, relentless furies, and endless punishments.

If metaphysics means "

the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space" then this next statement is just simply false. Good grief, most of "On Nature" / Lucretius is devoted to the first principles of things!

Quote from Charles

Having rejected religion, Epicurus goes on to reject metaphysics. We can know nothing of the suprasensual world; reason must confine itself to the experience of the senses, and must accept these as the final test of truth.

This is worded flippantly as if we should presume he was unwise to do so:

Quote from Charles

he abandons Democritus in mid-air,

What? Unwise to interest ourselves in them? The doctrine of innumerable worlds is a key aspect of the eternal / boundless universe showing that the Earth and life here are not special playthings of supernatural gods.

Quote from Charles

There are innumerable worlds, but it is unwise to interest ourselves in them.

At least he gets a few things correct, and this is a pretty important point:

Quote from Charles

Virtue, in this philosophy, is not an end in itself, it is only an indispensable means to a happy life.

I think this is poorly worded, because without restating that "good" and "bad" a relative terms you imply that we ALWAYS will choose a pleasure, even when it leads to pain that outweighs the pleasure later, which is not what Epicurus said at all.

Quote from Charles

The only certain propositions in philosophy are that pleasure is good, and that pain is bad.

This is flatly wrong -- "understanding" is nowhere stated to be the "highest Happiness" or even the "highest pleasure" -- it is a tool toward pleasure, not the end in itself.

Quote from Charles

In the end, then, understanding is not only the highest virtue, it is also the highest happiness, for it avails more than any other faculty in us to avoid pain and grief.

More minimalism which is not accurate, combined with "only the useless is costly" which I think is very far from the meaning of the material that he is claiming to quote. Pleasures of some kinds can be quite costly, and there is no prohibition at all in Epicurus from pursuing them if you deem the cost worthwhile.

Quote from Charles

And consider how little is needed to a wise contentfresh air, the cheapest foods, a modest shelter, a bed, a few books, and a friend. “Everything natural is easily procured, and only the useless is costly.”

This far overstates the case and is a typical distortion. Or Else Epicurus was sentencing Metrodorus' daughter, and the school member who married her, to "unnecessary.. perennial grief" -- which would be a ridiculous assertion.

Quote from Charles

Even love, marriage, and parentage are unnecessary; they bring us fitful pleasures, but perennial grief.

The greatest of all goods is not peace, it is PLEASURE! Now if you want to parse "goods" the way DeWitt does, you might say "life" but in no way are you going to reach the conclusion "peace."

Quote from Charles

Because he controls his appetites, lives without pretense, and puts aside all fears, the natural “sweetness of life” (hedone) rewards him with the greatest of all goods, which is peace.

In Epicurean philosophy there is no passion for understanding? And it's a "reaction" "from" the brave curiosity of prior Greeks? RIDICULOUS.

Quote from Charles

here is no subtlety here, and no warm passion for understanding; on the contrary Epicureanism, despite its transmission of the atomic theory, marks a reaction from the brave curiosity that had created Greek science and philosophy.

NEGATIVITY? Only to a theist who thinks he is giving up life after death, or a stoic who insists on reading the goal of Epicurus as freedom from pain, rather than PLEASURE. And again, pity the poor daughter of Metrodorus, who was being sentenced to marry someone who supposedly was being taught to be a bachelor!

Quote from Charles

The profoundest defect of the system is its negativity: it thinks of pleasure as freedom from pain, and of wisdom as an escape from the hazards and fullness of life; it provides an excellent design for bachelorhood, but hardly for a society.

No - there is nothing to support this in the texts; this is just modern political posturing.

Quote from Charles

Epicurus respected the state as a necessary evil

It is recorded in Diogenes Laertius that he called a group of philosophical opponents "Enemies of Greece," yet he insists on saying:

Quote from Charles

he appears to have cared little about national independence;

OK maybe "any government" could be acceptable depending on circumstances, but the goal would not be "pursuit of wisdom and companionship" but pleasure!

Quote from Charles

Epicurus was ready to accept any government that offered no hindrance to the unobtrusive pursuit of wisdom and companionship

Here "the good can be won" is too broad and ambiguous, and "all that we dread can be conquered" is too. "The good" has to be understood to be pleasure in relative terms (not everyone is going to live 70 years of total happiness) and as far as "conquering" all that we fear, we are taught that there is no punishment after death, but that doesn't mean necessarily that we "conquer" if our goal is to live happily and we are deprived of it by forces that overwhelm us.

Quote from Charles

The gods are not to be feared; death cannot be felt; the good can be won; all that we dread can be conquered.”

THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS CHARLES!

I am still in the process of reading what you posted Charles but it is a coincidence that you post this today because just yesterday I was expressing to a friend my frustration that Epicurus is accused of being a part of a "Crisis of Confidence" period in Greek philosophy where everyone gave up hope and just tried to escape from pain. Maybe in part that is true as to the Stoics and others, but how ridiculous to lump Epicurus into that when he was the one who was emphasizing that THIS life is all we have, so that we have to make the most of it!

I am going to read the rest now but wanted to say this first. This is the kind of standard dismissal of Epicurus that is so infuriating.

Happy 20th of February, 2020!

Even if you haven't read DeWitt's "Epicurus and His Philosophy," you can still profit from these first three opening paragraphs, because if you don't understand this point you'll never be able to navigate between conflicting interpretations of what Epicurus taught:

"At the very outset the reader should be prepared to think of him at one and the same time as the most revered and the most reviled of all founders of thought in the Graeco-Roman world.

His was the only creed that attained to the dimensions of a world philosophy. For the space of more than seven centuries, three before Christ and four afterward, it continued to command the devotion of multitudes of men. It nourished among Greeks and barbarians alike, in Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Judaea, Egypt, Italy, Roman Africa, and Gaul. The man himself was revered as an ethical father, a savior, and a god. Men wore his image on finger-rings; they displayed painted portraits of him in their living rooms; the more affluent honored him with likenesses in marble. His handbooks of doctrine were carried about like breviaries; his sayings were esteemed as if oracles and committed to memory as if Articles of Faith. His published letters were cherished as if epistles of an apostle. Pledges were taken to live obedient to his precepts. On the twentieth day of every month his followers assembled to perform solemn rites in honor of his memory, a sort of sacrament.

Throughout these same seven centuries no man was more ceaselessly reviled. At his first appearance as a public teacher he was threatened with the fate of Socrates. In Athens he never dared to offer instruction in a public place but confined himself to his own house and garden. His character and his doctrines became the special target of abuse for each successive school and sect, first for Platonists, next for Stoics, and finally for Christians. His name became an abomination to orthodox Jews. The Christians, though by no means blind to the merit of his ethics, abhorred him for his denial of divine providence and immortality."

One of the highlights of this episode is to hear Elayne show us, at about the 35 minute mark, that she can compete, not with with the Zeus for happiness, but with Julie Andrews in singing about "nothing comes from nothing!" i never heard this before myself, so I better prepare you!

Most all of those programs sound really interesting to me - I particular wish I could have heard the presentations on "many worlds" and exploration of life on other planets!

A top-of-the-world cultural event, the 10th Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy took place on the weekend of 8 and 9 February 2020 with the participation of the record number of more than five hundred Greeks inspired by the enlightening and humanistic philosophy of Epicurus. This is a unique philosophical conference, as it is the only one organized worldwide dedicated exclusively to Epicurean philosophy. It is also the largest national philosophical conference and the only one in Greece that has been established since 2011 as an institution from the people rather than from the university philosophers. It is organized annually with free entrance for the public by the Municipality of Pallini and the Friends of Epicurean Philosophy "Garden of Athens" and "Garden of Salonica" at the Cultural Center of Gerakas, located within the ancient area of Gargettus, from which the philosopher Epicurus originated from.

The commencement of the Symposium was held by the Mayor of Pallini, Athanasios Zoutsos, followed by greetings from friends of Epicurus from all over the world and Greece.

In this year's 10th anniversary Panhellenic Symposium, Epicurus's timeless contribution to human thought was highlighted by distinguished scientists and philosophers in a roundtable discussion coordinated by Christos Yapijakis, Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Athens and founding member of the “Garden of Athens”. Theodosis Pelegrinis, Professor of Philosophy and Former Rector of the University of Athens, referred to the humanistic philosophy of Epicurus; George Chrousos Professor of Medicine at the University of Athens, highlighted the Epicurean psychotherapeutic approach to stress management; Evangelos Protopapadakis, Assistant Professor of Philosophy of the University of Athens, discussed Epicurean ethics as based on human biology (bioethics); Anastasios Liolios, Professor of Physics at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and CERN researcher, presented Epicurean atomic physics as the ancestor of modern particle physics and quantum physics; Dionysis Simopoulos, Director Emeritus of Eugenides Planetarium, discussed the Epicurean perception regarding the existence of many worlds in the Universe confirmed by modern astronomy; Stamatios Krimigis, Professor of Space Physics and renown NASA scientist, described modern exploration of the possible existence of life on other planets, as predicted by Epicurus.

Distinguished members of the “Gardens” made important speeches, among which it is worth mentioning “a new fragment of Diogenes of Oenoanda” by Yannis Avramidis of the “Garden of Thessaloniki” and “Epicurean philosophy and nutrition” by Klea Nomikou-Tsantsaridi of the “Garden of Athens”.

In the artistic part of the Symposium, the presentation of one scene from Christos Yapijakis' new theatrical play "A Happy Greek", regarding Epicurus' life and work, stood out. Directed by Stavros Spyrakis, the four amateur actors thrilled the audience with their performance and were rewarded by a particularly warm applause.

The 10th Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy has offered to hundreds of Greeks with a need for learning and a desire for a better world to experience the timeless utility of the Epicurean philosophy, which offers a mental shield to putative individual and social deadlocks. The scientific, humanistic and psychotherapeutic message of Epicurus on one hand expresses the simplest and most profound way of approaching a happy life with friendship and solidarity, even in difficult times, and on the other hand it differs fundamentally from the fashionable superficial message of "prosperity” propagated in Greece and internationally.

http://www.epicuros.gr/pages/en.htm

Welcome to Episode Seven of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who lived in the age of Julius Caesar and wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

I am your host Cassius, and together with my panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you line by line 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 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.

Before we start with today's episode let me remind you of our three ground rules.

First: Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it, not to put our own positions into Lucretius' or Epicurus' words.

Second: In this podcast we won't be talking about modern political issues. Over at the Epicureanfriends.com web forum, we call this approach "Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean." Epicurean philosophy is not a religion, it''s not Stoicism, Humanism, Libertarianism, Atheism, or Marxism - it is a unique philosophy of its own, to be understood on its own terms, not in terms of conventional modern morality.

Third: Lucretius will show that Epicurus was not focused on over-the-top luxury, like some people say, but neither did he teach a minimalist lifestyle, as other people say. Epicurus taught that feeling - pleasure and pain - are the guides that Nature gave us to live by, not gods, idealism, or virtue ethics. More than anything else, Epicurus taught that the universe is not supernatural in any way, and that means there's no life after death, and any happiness we'll ever have comes in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.

Remember that our home page is LucretiusToday.com, and there you can find a free copy of the version of the poem from which we are reading, and links to where you can discuss the poem between episodes at Epicureanfriends.com.

In the episodes so far here are the major topics we have covered:

• That Pleasure, using the allegory of Venus, is the driving force of all life;
• That the way to rid ourselves of pain is to replace pain with pleasure, using the allegory of Venus entertaining Mars, the god of war;
• That Epicurus was the great philosophic leader who stood up to supernatural religion, opened the gates to a proper understanding of nature, , and thereby showed us how we too can emulate the life of gods;
• That it is not Epicurean philosophy, but supernatural religion, which is truly unholy and prompts men to commit evil deeds;
• That false priests and philosophers will try to scare you away from Epicurean philosophy with threats of punishment after death, which is why you must understand that those threats cannot be true;
• That the key to freeing yourself from false religion and false philosophy is found in the study of nature;
• And that the first observation which underlies all the rest of Epicurean philosophy is that we observe that nothing is ever generated from nothing.

Now that we are up to date let's start today's discussion!

This is the text that will be covered in Episode Seven. The Latin version of Book One has this as beginning at approximately line 175 which can be found in the Munro Latin Edition here.

1743 Daniel Browne Edition (click link for English and Latin):

Why do we see the rose adorn the Spring, the fruits in Summer, and the sweaty Autumn pressing the vine, unless the fixed seeds of things, uniting in their proper times, give life to beings, each in its stated season, while Mother Earth can trust her tender offspring with safety to the air. But if things proceed from nothing, in a moment they might spring at times uncertain, at quarters of the year unfit, and there would be no proper seeds, whose kindly influence might check their growth at seasons that would kill them in the bud.

Again, if things could spring from nought, what need of time for bodies to fulfill their growth by accession of new matter? An infant then might instantly become a youth, and trees start up in full perfection from the Earth. But ‘tis not so, ‘tis plain; for things, we know, grow by degrees from certain seeds, and still, as they grow, keep their kind; and thus you find each being rise into bulk, and thrives from seed and matter proper to itself.

Nor, likewise, can the Earth produce her fruits to cheer the heart, unless with timely showers impregnated; nor can creatures, blessed with life, deprived of food, ever propagate their kind, or save their own lives; and so you safer say that certain fixed principles belong to certain things, as letters form our words, than that from nothing any thing can rise.

Further, whence is it that Nature cannot shew men so gigantic as, on foot, to wade through seas, or with their hands to tear up mighty hills, or to surpass the common bounds of life, by many ages, but that certain seeds are fixed to all things, whence they must arise? And so we must confess that nothing springs from nothing, since each kind must proceed from seed, the principle whence every creature derives its life, and feels the gentle air.

Besides, we find the Earth, improved by care, exceeds the uncultivated soil, and by turning up the fruitful clods, by ploughing, and, by breaking up the ground, we force to spring. But then, if no such seeds lay there, the fruits, without our labor, would of their own accord improve, and of themselves prevent our care.

Munro: 

Again, why do we see the rose put forth in spring, corn in the season of heat, vines yielding at the call of autumn, if not because, when the fixed seeds of things have streamed together at the proper time, whatever is born discloses itself, while the due seasons are there and the quickened earth brings its weakly products in safety forth into the borders of light? But if they came from nothing, they would rise up suddenly at uncertain periods and unsuitable times of year, inasmuch as there would be no first-beginnings to be kept from a begetting union by the unpropitious season.

[185] No nor would time be required for the growth of things after the meeting of the seed, if they could increase out of nothing. Little babies would at once grow into men and trees in a moment would rise and spring out of the ground. But none of these events it is plain ever comes to pass, since all things grow step by step [at a fixed time], as is natural, [since they all grow] from a fixed seed and in growing preserve their kind; so that you may be sure that all things increase in size and are fed out of their own matter.

[193] Furthermore without fixed seasons of rain the earth is unable to put forth its gladdening produce, nor again if kept from food could the nature of living things continue its kind and sustain life; so that you may hold with greater truth that many bodies are common to many things, as we see letters common to different words, than that anything could come into being without first-beginnings. Again why could not nature have produced men of such a size and strength as to be able to wade on foot across the sea and rend great mountains with their hands and outlive many generations of living men, if not because an unchanging matter has been assigned for begetting things and what can arise out of this matter is fixed? We must admit therefore that nothing can come from nothing, since things ,require seed before they can severally be born and be brought out into the buxom fields of air.

[208] Lastly, since we see that tilled grounds surpass untilled and yield a better produce by the labor of hands, we may infer that there are in the earth first-beginnings of things which by turning up the fruitful clods with the share and laboring the soil of the earth we stimulate to rise. But if there were not such, you would see all things without any labor of ours spontaneously come forth in much greater perfection.

Bailey:

Or again, why do we see the roses in spring, and the corn in summer’s heat, and the vines bursting out when autumn summons them, if it be not that when, in their own time, the fixed seeds of things have flowed together, then is disclosed each thing that comes to birth, while the season is at hand, and the lively earth in safety brings forth the fragile things into the coasts of light? But if they sprang from nothing, suddenly would they arise at uncertain intervals and in hostile times of year, since indeed there would be no first-beginnings which might be kept apart from creative union at an ill-starred season.

[185] Nay more, there would be no need for lapse of time for the increase of things upon the meeting of the seed, if they could grow from nothing. For little children would grow suddenly to youths, and at once trees would come forth, leaping from the earth. But of this it is well seen that nothing comes to pass, since all things grow slowly, as is natural, from a fixed seed, and as they grow preserve their kind: so that you can know that each thing grows great, and is fostered out of its own substance.

[193] There is this too, that without fixed rain-showers in the year the earth could not put forth its gladdening produce, nor again held apart from food could the nature of living things renew its kind or preserve its life; so that rather you may think that many bodies are common to many things, as we see letters are to words, than that without first-beginnings anything can come to being.

[200] Once more, why could not nature produce men so large that on their feet they might wade through the waters of ocean or rend asunder mighty mountains with their hands, or live to overpass many generations of living men, if it be not because fixed substance has been appointed for the begetting of things, from which it is ordained what can arise? Therefore, we must confess that nothing can be brought to being out of nothing, inasmuch as it needs a seed for things, from which each may be produced and brought forth into the gentle breezes of the air.

[208] Lastly, inasmuch as we see that tilled grounds are better than the untilled, and when worked by hands yield better produce, we must know that there are in the earth first-beginnings of things, which we call forth to birth by turning the teeming sods with the ploughshare and drilling the soil of the earth. But if there were none such, you would see all things without toil of ours of their own will come to be far better.

Quote from Godfrey

Btw I've had this song stuck in my head all morning. Decidedly not necessary!

Probably this is one of the first movies that I went to as a child in the theatre. This song has been burned in my head for some 40+ years! it's this kind of catchy tune and phrasing that can have significant cultural impact, even if it is a cartoon bear eating ants and bananas.

Here is an example of how the "bare necessities" analysis has intruded into internet commentary on Epicurus until it has become accepted as obvious truth:

That is from: Epicurus: The Happy Apikores - A page entitled "Daf Aleph - Jewish Thought For Thoughtful Jews"

Quote from Lee

In my opinion, Adler is general correct in his opinion that nominalistic is wrong and that these “universals” or “events” exist in the intellect.

My understanding of what the term "nominalistic" means is not sufficient for me to understand whether "nominalism" is accurate or inaccurate, or what that says about Adler and his opinion. I probably should not have added this note here but wanted to clarify for the record that i'm not able to contribute much to answer that question.

Quote from Lee

I, however, think the arguments raised here point out that the material brain could be sufficient to explain our experience

Yes I do think that that is the essential point - that the mechanisms of the brain do not contain any element or connection to anything "supernatural" that would give rise to ideal forms, divine communication/revelation, or the ability to spot "essences" such as the other Greeks were theorizing.

Issues arising from popular songs and art is a very fruitful area to discuss. I will eventually move this thread to an "art" section.

That is very good for me to know Mike! As Elayne is commenting in the other thread, there are multiple things going on in that song and movie, all of which "bear" on what we are discussing. if we treat the song as being about "bear necessities" then we immediately see how the necessities and pleasures are contextual. If we treat the song as being about "bare necessities" then we have a totally different meaning. There's a lot to pull apart here, especially for those of a particular background and age group who are knowledgeable about the movie and have absorbed that song into their consciousness over a lifetime.

Yes those are excellent points -- there are multiple levels of things going on here!