Posts by Cassius

Quote from Pacatus

If empirical evidence is certain, one has no need of “faith” – one has certain knowledge. If the available empirical evidence is subject to revision via new observations, as it generally is (whether one acknowledges it or not), then it is not certain. Faith cannot make it so. But we can act on the best evidence we have.

Yes, we act on the best evidence we have. But I don't think the first sentence is obvious. No amount of empirical evidence is sufficient for certainty unless you have a working definition of certainty, and that's what the issue of trust / faith is all about -- or so I think at the moment.

I seem to remember that you Pacatus consider yourself to be either eclectic or skeptic or some combination rather than orthodox Epicurean, so I think we're getting here at some of the reason for that and lurkers reading this should be aware of that.

Epicurus appears to have had a working version of dogmatism in which he did consider certain things to be certain and beyond the expectation of need for revision. And of course that's highly controversial, and in the past and likely in the future will be a dividing line between those who consider themselves to be orthodox Epicurean vs those who don't. Of course calling yourself an orthodox Epicurean and a dollar might buy you a cup of coffee nowadays.

Quote from Pacatus

that they actually knew things by faith

I guess that's really the question of what we're talking about. Having confidence in something (the existence of atoms; life on other worlds, for examples) is pretty close to "knowing something by faith" depending on the precise meaning of those words.

Your confidence in your conclusion comes from your confidence in the analysis steps along the way even in the absence of "direct" observation, so I can see "knowing something by faith" to possibly be a correct use of those words, depending on the meaning of "faith." It all comes down to your starting point on what you accept as the facts on which to base the confident expectation.

Those look great! I really like the idea of combining the busts with the profiles and the mounting on a column.

Yes, Patikios, I think that is coming whether we like it or not. There will eventually be many competing models of Epicurus out there. I presume that means that the task will be not to simply provide the model with raw texts, but also to provide it with "instructions" on how to interpret them. There will eventually be Stoic-friendly Epicuruses, Buddhist-friendly Epicurus, etc just like there are no many different websites and takes on Epicurus.

Thanks for the offer of your experience so far. I'll message you on what you have done so far but if you and others will keep a watch out for other Epicurus AI engines that are already public and post about them here I will appreciate it.

This is definitely a tricky issue to navigate. I would think it really implicates issues of canonics and what Philodemus would be talking about in "On Signs/Methods of Inference." When is it appropriate to extrapolate from the known to reach conclusions about the unknown?

It's tempting to think of rationality as requiring direct evidence, but it's also common (in law for example) to reach conclusions based on "circumstantial evidence." We wouldn't normally refer to that as having "faith" or "trust" in something, but I suppose that's exactly what we're doing in trusting that the "circumstances" can indicate a reliable conclusion.

It really grates on the sensibilities to consider "Faith" to be an Epicurean virtue or a good thing at all, but I suppose it is and it's something to get used to discussing as part of the proper attitude toward Epicurean canonics.

"Trust" or "Faith" implies an object which we are trusting or having faith in. As general term in an Epicurean context, what would be that object? Here again maybe "Confidence" works just as well or better, and indicates where Cicero got that derogatory accusation in "On The Nature of the Gods":

Quote from On The Nature of The Gods Book One - VIII¶ (Yonge version)

After this, Velleius, with the confidence peculiar to his sect, dreading nothing so much as to seem to doubt of anything, began as if he had just then descended from the council of the Gods, and Epicurus’s intervals of worlds. Do not attend, says he, to these idle and imaginary tales; nor to the operator and builder of the World, the God of Plato’s Timæus; nor to the old prophetic dame, the Πρόνοια of the Stoics, which the Latins call Providence; nor to that round, that burning, revolving deity, the World, endowed with sense and understanding; the prodigies and wonders, not of inquisitive philosophers, but of dreamers!

Looks like the Latin is: "Tum Velleius fidenter sane, ut solent isti, hihil tam vereus quam ne dubitare aliqua de re videretur....."

Thanks Eikadistes. That's exactly the threshold question I was concerned about but didn't know enough Greek to be confident about. I feel sure we've discussed this in the past but it's hard to keep it in mind over time.

So it IS proper to see Epicurus as talking about "faith," and coming from him, he definitely isn't embracing any kind of "belief without any evidence at all" definition of the term.

Yep Dave it's amazing. It apparently had no problem understanding the audio, and then it found the major points and summarized them sometimes with more clarity than the original. It definitely didn't track 100%, and it also introduced some details that we did not talk about, but you'd have to think that this kind of summary would be better than many people could do even at college level and only then after many hours of work.

Lots of food for thought.

I don't recall that we've discussed in depth the word "faith" especially since it has a disreputable connotation of "belief without evidence." However we see "confidence" discussed regularly, and at least in the English/Latin the root of the word implies a use of a variation of "faith" that is indeed based on strong evidence. We don't say that we have "faith" when we get on an airplane, we say we have "confidence," and that would seem to be a fully legitimate use of such a term.

I want to build out a forum structure which addresses "Epicurean virtues" so this thread will start that discussion as to "Faith" (used appropriately) or "Confidence," and that will require looking for relevant texts. Here's part of what DeWitt has to say about this. I wonder if each of these cites he makes isn't better translated as "confidence," but on the other hand that doesn't make the issue go away that confidence means "with faith" - so as part of the answer to skepticism there must be legitimate uses of "faith" just as with "gods" and "virtue."

Quote

While this conjunction of faith in doctrine with faith in the leader introduces a dynamic emotional element, it still falls short of making a complete picture. The disciple cannot live to himself. Epicurus thought of his oracular teachings as "beneficial for all men," and he planned coherence for all the local brotherhoods in which his disciples were enrolled. All members depended upon one another for what St. Paul referred to as Peace and Safety. This means that the Epicurean must not only feel faith in doctrine and leader but also in friends and friendship. The authority for this is Vatican Saying 34, which exhibits a play upon words that is characteristic of the master's style: "We do not so much have need of help from friends in time of need as faith in help in time of need." ..... [omit gratuitous Christianity reference]

There is a difference, however; Epicurus was more restrained and stopped short of fanatical trust in his creed. Friendship was subject to planning and began with advantage even if developing into affection and faith. Authorized Doctrine 40: "All those who have best succeeded in building up the ability to feel secure from the attacks of those around them have lived the happiest lives with one another, as having the firmest faith." Thus even faith is in part the result of planning.

Epicurus was aware nevertheless of the saving function of faith. He assures his disciples that his account of the soul will result in "the firmest faith,"⁸³⁴and the sole objective of the study of celestial phenomena is to acquire "tranquility and a firm faith."⁸³⁵His account of the soul would result in emancipating the disciple from the fear of death, and his account of celestial phenomena on a physical basis would spare men the fear of Plato's astral divinities.⁸³⁶The supreme function of faith was to banish fears and uncertainties from life.

Thank you for all you do Eikadistes.

This past weekend I listened to a computer tech podcast (The "Ask Noah Show") which mentioned the use of Googles' "Notebookllm" for generation of AI summaries.

The podcast discussed many ethical issues surrounding AI, and I very much recommend their discussion. The podcaster who gave most of the discussion is an employee of "Red Hat" (a major linux/computer company owned by IBM). and their episode can be found here.

Those podcasters decided to see what AI would do with their own work, and based on their example, I did the same thing with two of our Lucretius Today podcasts.

Of course I think our own live podcasts are better, but if you compare the summary to original I think you'll find that the Ai summary is shockingly good. And this is not just a text summary -- this is a live dialogue between two very professional sounding AI voices.

While the result is far from perfect, the ease with which this was produced is very worrying.

Here are the links:

Both episodes revolve around the absence of pain issue, with 295 devoted to Plutarch and 294 devoted to Cicero. I am not making these videos publicly findable on the Youtube page, but the private links above are available for comparison.

These are great questions! Let me go through them and give you what I think is the answer. Not everyone is going to agree with me, but I think what I am about to say is the clear implication of what Torquatus was explaining to Cicero:

I think we better start here:

Quote from Rolf

1) There is only pleasure and pain.

This is not so simple that we can stop without explanation, and failure to clarify it is a source of much problem. Yes, Epicurus says that nature gives us only pleasure and pain as feelings by which to know what to choose and what to avoid.

But you are asking a series of questions about "Pleasure" and "Pain" with capital "p's" -- You are asking about the concept of pleasure and the concept of pain. As a concept which serves as a stand-in for the "goal of life," "Pleasure" is a conceptual term which encompasses all possible experiences of pleasure, from the longest and most intense to the shortest and least intense. All pleasures are conceptually part of "Pleasure," but all pleasures are not by any means identical. The same thing goes for pain.

A large part of the problem in general discussions of Epicurus is that people are talking about "Pleasure" as the conceptual goal of life without making clear that the goal of a real person's real life is not a "concept," but a set of real experiences that cannot be described completely in the term "Pleasure" any more than a map constitutes every detail of an area of land that is being mapped.

And not separating those two contexts leads to most of your questions:

Quote from Rolf

3) Let’s say my hunger and thirst are satiated, my body is healthy, I have good friends, and I fear neither gods nor death.

4) This being the case, I am experiencing the absence of pain/fullness of pleasure, am I not?

The answer to (3) is "not necessarily." We are philosophers, and you have not stated in 3 that you are not suffering any pain. Torquatus' examples, including the comparison of the host pouring wine and the guest drinking in, are stated in the context that the example includes as a premise that they are otherwise without pain. Anyone who is "without pain" is therefore definitionally and conceptually at the height of pleasure, because you are speaking in broad definitional terms. Pure pleasure - 100% pleasure - cannot be made more pleasurable by removing impurities, because "pure" means without impurity, and 100% means a mathematical limit for any given subject.

So I would say that your conclusion in (4) is not properly established by (3). you have listed a number of pleasurable conditions, but you have not by so doing confirmed that your "jar is full" and that there is not more room for more pleasure in your life.

Quote from Rolf

Do you agree that the conditions listed in point 3 are all that is necessary to experience the absence of pain? If so, and if that is the limit of pleasure, why do you also press that these things are not enough, and that Epicurus also encourages these “active pleasures” like playing and dancing?

So the answer here is that I do not agree that the points listed in 3 are "all that is necessary to experience the absence of pain" in total. They could be if you also stated that the person was without pain, but unless someone is affirmatively stating that the person is "without pain" then you don't know.

This would apply to the Chrysippus hand challenge. We know that the hand was at the "height of pleasure" only because the hypothetical was that the hand was "in its normal condition" and not in pain. Could any particular hand get more pleasure from a warm massage rather than in its normal condition? I think the answer is clearly yes, but that doesn't mean that the point made by Torquatus is incorrect. "Pure" pleasure does not necessarily equate to "most intense," or "longest duration" or "largest part of the body affected." Torquatus did not say that the hand was experiencing any of those -- not the most intense please, nor the longest, or the most extensive. The debate about the hand was in terms of the "height," or as in PD03, the "limit of quantity." These are technical terms suitable for philosophical debate, but they don't tell you the difference between good heath and a good massage.

Quote from Rolf

If some pleasures are more pleasurable than others, wouldn’t that make my jar “more full”?

Per PD09, pleasures differ from each other in at least the qualities of intensity, duration, and part of the body affected. Some particular pleasures ARE more intense, or last longer, or involve different parts of the body, and only an idiot would deny that. But all pleasures are unified in being feelings that we find desirable, and thus one of them is not more conceptually "pleasure" than is another.

This is Pleasure with a capital "P" - conceptual pleasure - all of which carries the same definition of a desirable feeling. The concept never changes, even though the particulars can and do change.

Quote from Rolf

If some pleasures are more pleasurable than others, wouldn’t that make my jar “more full”? How does this fit together with absence of pain being the limit of pleasure? And if the jar can be full while containing different levels of pleasure, then what is it even measuring?

A jar which can contain only "Pleasure" and "Pain" cannot be defined as full containing different levels of "Pleasure," for reasons that are obvious - we are defining the possibilities and there are no options outside our hypothetical. But different jars of "Pleasure" can and certainly will contain very different mixtures of difference types of pleasurable experiences.

We all know this to be true, but what you're asking is the right question. How can different jars be other than the same if they all are full of "Pleasure?" And the answer is that pleasures are not "just" concepts. Pleasurable experiences are what is real, while "Pleasure" is a concept that philosophers use in debate. The same goes for "Happiness." The wise man can by "Happy" even which tortured on the wrack or in the throws of dying from kidney disease, because "happiness" is a concept we can define as an overall assessment of more reason for joy than for vexation, while "a feeling of happiness" is not what is generated by torture machines or kidney stones.

Quote from Rolf

I’m playing devil’s advocate a little here in order to understand the logic. Again, I agree with the conclusions. But I’m having trouble seeing how it all fits together. It feels almost a little contradictory.

Everyone ought to be asking these questions, because unless you demand consistency and clear answers, no one ever gets anywhere. And far too many people outside this forum are ignoring these issues and thinking that they can wink and smile and fool others - and themselves - into thinking that Buddhist nothingness / Stoic apathy really is super pleasurable.

And that's in my view why Epicurean philosophy has been stuck in the mud ever since the last of the ancient Epicureans passed away.

No one except a confirmed Buddhist or Stoic or Sadist really believes that "absence of pain" understood as 99% of the world understands it is really worth being a goal in life. But the majority of Epicureans have fled from the idea that "absence of pain" really means "pleasure" because that would not be respectable, or virtuous, and to say so would earn them the disapproving frowns of the intelligentsia.

In my view, you can either demand consistency and clarity, in which case you come around to seeing that these are definitional and philosophical issues. Once you accept that, "absence of pain" becomes nothing more than technical terminology for exactly the same thing expressed by the word "pleasure."

The reason you've chosen technical terminology like that is because you are philosopher, and you're dealing with technical objections from the Platonists and others who demand to know "the limit" of pleasure. Absence of pain is highly useful for answering that question - for identifying the theoretical limit.

But "absence of pain" in this context is conceptual, and this conceptual answer does not tell you whether to stop when you're not thirsty or hungry. You have to apply also the rest of the conceptual framework, in which you're previously identified that all pleasure is desirable, and that there would never be any reason whatsoever ---but one -- not to seek to obtain all the pleasure you can. And that single reason not to pursue a particular pleasure is that you evaluate that pursuing that pleasure would result - in the end - with bringing you more pain than pleasure.

I suppose I should address too the related question of how long you wish to live, or how much pleasure you wish to experience while you are alive. To me, the answer Epicurus points to is that "satisfaction" comes from realizing the limit that you are human and mortal and that nature allows you to live and pursue pleasure for only a certain period of time in good heath. You don't need to be king or the most famous person in the world to consider your jar of life to be full of pleasure. But if you have consciously avoided, through fear or otherwise, stepping up to experience the pleasures that are possible to you, then the reasonable and thoughtful person is going to naturally feel regret at passing over pleasure for no good reason. And "regret" is a pain.

Edit: As always, I'm not Epicurus and can't speak for him. These answers are just the best I can do today given my state of analysis and reading from all the various materials.

Quote from DaveT

I am enjoying this discussion. I recently read that a distinction between the Stoics and the Epicureans was that the Stoics focused on a public, civic-minded orientation, and thus a belief in virtue as a goal to that end. And that the Epicureans’ belief in more private life promoted pleasure etc. and friendship for personal happiness. I know this may sound simplistic, but that comparison helps me understand why the two philosophies were so different in the view and uses of virtue.

I think that's definitely true - that they had a different orientation toward public life. That seems like an innocuous enough distinction, but then you get to the question of "why' they had a such a different attitude. And I'd say that stems directly from the physics as to the nature of the universe. If you think there's a "Providence" that has designed the universe and everything in it intelligently, then you're going to want to work to bring not only yourself but also your society into conformity with those views.

If you think that there is no central intelligent designer, and that nature works through practical experience in many different ways according to circumstances, then you're going to be much more willing to "live and let live" and let each person pursue their own personal view of what makes them happy.

The topic of Artificial Intelligence is going to consume a lot of bandwidth as time goes by, so posts concerning it will be consolidated in this subforum dedicated to the topic:

Artificial Intelligence and Epicurean Philosophy

The many issues generated by the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) present very complicated questions. Technologies are changing rapidly, as are the consequences of the use of AI. This subforum is the place to discuss issues surrounding the use of AI, and this pinned post is a first attempt to set forth posting policies to respond to these issues. Adjustments will be made over time as we receive additional feedback and the situation changes.

AI TEXT

In general, the use of AI to generate forum posts is discouraged. With proper labeling, some use of AI for compilation of difficult to find information is acceptable, but conversational posts not identified as AI are strictly prohibited, especially when submitted by new participants in the forum in place of posting their own ideas.

Posts which are clearly labeled as containing AI and are combined with the personal commentary of the poster about the AI content can serve a legitimate purpose, especially if the point of the post is to discuss the impact of the AI on the study of Epicurus. Our general intent is to prohibit the use of AI-generated opinion as a substitute for the personal thought of our forum participants.

If you use AI for your research and wish to share those results on this forum, please include the AI result within quotes so that the forum software will reformat the material into a box that will take less space.

AI AUDIO/VISUAL/GRAPHICS

Use of AI-generated images, videos, and sound pose many additional issues. Once such issue is that such material frequently involves large file sizes which consume forum resources. In most cases where you want to share media materials, the best practice will be to post it to a video site such as Youtube (or an alternative) or an image hosting service (click here for alternatives). You can then post a link to that location and the forum software will embed the media and the post without consuming forum resources

In addition to copyright and resource concerns, audio-visual-graphics are generally a matter of personal preference, and their use should be closely related to the study and promotion of Epicurean philosophy. AI artwork is a particularly difficult line to draw, but we discourage slavish use of AI as a substitute for artistic talent or creativity.

We will continue to monitor developments in AI technology and update this policy as circumstances change.

Quote from Matteng

Another caveat is that these classifications were often made by philosophers for whom virtue represented the highest good (so be careful when it is about Pleasure or Piety for Gods) .

I would say that's the most important point, and if forgotten it turns the whole classification process into a problem rather than a help. I like to outline and classify things too - so long as I don't forget they the purpose of the outline is to help in application, and not to uncover some hidden power from the classification itself. It's easy to get lost in classifying and the Stoics are a great example of not seeing the forest because they spend too much time classifying the trees.

Quote from DaveT

A general usage to me is that I’m skeptical of any proposition that seems to lack proofs, and I’m willing to suspend my belief or disbelief until I see enough proof to satisfy me

I would say that is exactly the right attitude, but unfortunately in philosophy skepticism has a very specific logical extreme which is a well established school of its own and which goes far beyond the common sense version you're describing.

Quote from Pacatus

Who wants a GPT Epicurus?

If there's not already one, there almost certainly will be. And that's going to put the ball in the court of those who think that the available Epicurus-bots aren't the place to get info about Epicurus.

I have com across several things I want to post about just in the last 24 hours, and I am thinking of taking this thread and perhaps several others on the topic and moving it into a special section. i'm debating whether to keep that special section as "Level 3" (where the general public won't see it) or move into a more public area given the importance of the concerns. Many of the posts made already are excellent and of general interest and importance. If anyone has posted anything in this thread that they would prefer to remain in Level 3, please let me know. Otherwise I think this is such a hot topic that we ought to make these posts, and the development of an "Epicurean based strategy for dealing with AI" easier to find.

I have to repeat how much I agree with this chart from Don's post above, and I'm going to post it at the Epicurean facebook group with this comment:

A friend has pointed me to the graphic I am posting below. It comes from an article against the dangers of AI. The article has a small amount of political content that is against our group rules to highlight, and I deliberately omit referring to that here. But the majority of the article is non-political, and it describes the real--world effects of "collapse of confidence in reality" which AI has the potential to encourage

The reason I am posting this is not to comment on AI, but that I don't think this chart is limited to describing problems with AI. I'd say this chart is exactly what has happened to the West as a whole since about 100 AD and the wide suppression of the growing Epicurean movement. It's just this series of disasters described in the chart that Epicurean philosophy was developed to oppose. The big issue is that we shouldn't see this as a modern phenomena that began or got worse with AI. These disastrous attitudes are inherent in every form of skeptical / mystical / absolutist philosophy such as what Epicurus revolted against. And these problems are inherent in post-Epicurean western civilization for the last two thousand years.

THESE PROBLEMS are the enemy that Epicurus fought against with his physics and canonics, and it's why we need to emphasize all aspects of his philosophy. If we understand Epicurean physics and canonics we'll end up with a sound understanding of Epicurean ethics. If we don't understand the physics and canonics, Epicurean ethics is arbitrary and can be twisted into something far worse than worthless, as it has become in the writing of many commentators.

Over on Facebook someone posted this. There are certainly people here who are much more familiar with Hobbes than am I. Anyone want to propose some comments in answer:

Quote

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes seems to follow a materialistic philosophy that aligns with Epicurean thought. Since he was writing in a Christian context, he couldn’t be completely open about it, often couching his materialism in scriptural language. His reduction of spirit to matter and denial of incorporeal entities was viewed by his contemporaries as dangerously close to atheism. Would you say Hobbes’ philosophy is in harmony with Epicurean philosophy?”