Posts by Cassius

Julia have you seen Bryan's more recent work in making rings/jewelry? Bryan I know we have seen some of that in the Zoom meetings but maybe you could point us to a current location?

Quote from Don

3. If a human wanted to use that AI-generated image as a prompt to create a line drawing, I would find that preferable.

That's the part I didn't understand - got it!

Yes these considerations reflect some of our recent discussions.

It is desirable to:

1 - Discourage AI artwork here.

2 - Promote Epicurean Philosophy.,

If the use of AI legitimately in any respect serves goal 2 better than any alternative that is currently available to us, then I would put priority 2 first. Of course that's not generally going to be the case. In this case, the artwork is genuinely useful, I think, plus is it indicative of what others are seeing as to AI as to Epicurus. That in itself is a huge topic that I do not think we can ignore, just as we can't ignore wikipedia.

But of course, having noted all the above, that artwork will never be adopted here as a symbol associated with Epicureanfriends. A profile of some type might at some point be something good to use, but it won't be that one.

I realize that this might prompt renewal of that discussion and if so I'll move that part to the AI discussion thread if needed.

Quote from Don

I despise AI for artwork on a number of levels... But that's not bad. I'd certainly prefer someone using that as a prompt and not using that.

Perhaps a typo there Don ? Not sure what you mean....

@Steve - As far as I am concerned that is one of the best line drawings I have seen Steve. Can you get it to reprint with the word "Epicurus" under it - which might make it more usable in more situations? I know in my experience it's not easy to get an AI to redraw from an original.

Quote from Rolf

Related question: How does a modern-day Epicurean reconcile a) the predominant theory that the universe has a beginning with b) the Epicurean idea that the universe has no beginning and end?

Speaking for myself only, i consider this to be the intersection of philosophy vs "science," the latter word of which i find to be a word that is very ambiguous, easy to employ for political purposes, and thrown around far too loosely even by people who don't think they have an agenda. Some of that is discussed here.

It doesn't bother me that the "predominant" theory is that the universe had a beginning because I take the position that these proponents are not addressing the question of "what caused or what was prior to that beginning." Unless they are willing to go on record that "what was before the beginning was god" - which is really what they are implying - then they are just kicking the ball down the road and adding nothing to the conversation. The question is not "how many times has our section of the universe knowable to us expanded and contracted. The question is "what put the whole thing in motion in the first place" and that is best answered by something to the effect that in all human experience nothing has ever been observed to come from nothing, and as a matter of principle I'm not going to entertain speculation without evidence.

As Eikadistes said, much of the apparent turmoil comes from people taking the "observable universe" and not limiting their conclusions to "the observable." Yes, the "observable" universe may be expanding and contracting, but that does not mean that what is beyond the observable is expanding and contracting in the same direction. Epicurus is talking about "the all" when he says that the all is eternal and infinite, not any particular part of it.

I was raised at a time when "universe" was meant to refer to "the all." I realize that people today talk about multiverses and the like, but that just kicks the ball down the road again. I see no need to depart from traditional usage -- universe means "all that exists" and I see no persuasive evidence that indicates that Epicurus was wrong that "the all that exists" has existed for ever, and will exist forever, and that it has no limit in terms of space or time.

You'll find rhat in Epicurus' own time he and others (Lucian for example) were engaged in battles with the "scientists of their day" who were using mathematics and geometry to speculate that the stars were gods, and reach conclusions that contradict basic Epicurean physics as to the natural basis of the universe. There are always going to be such conflicts, just as there are now, and the way to deal with them is through understanding Epicurean canonics as standards of proof for what is and is not real, and how you deal with theories based on limited information which would appear to contradict fundamental conclusions that are based on repeatable observation and have proven their usefulness over the ages. One such observation is "nothing comes from nothing" and until an instance of that can be established to occur then nothing that contradicts that premise should be entertained to even be possible.

That list of connections is interesting in itself.

Of these, how many are distinctly Epicurean?

I'm asking in general now, what widely-known positions of Epicurus are distinctly Epicurean?

1. The Swerve (anyone disagree?)

2. ?

3. ?

In looking to turn that post in a more optimistic direction I would first start by focusing on the "ambiguity" part, because I think that could be stated better. I don't admit that Epicurus is ambiguous about the things listed in the post about the nature of the universe. Epicurus very precisely says that there are no supernatural gods and there's no existence after death, no eternal ideal forms, etc.

While we do have lists here and I think it is important to see how they are derived, I very much agree that it is not a good idea to focus on things like "THE four cures" to imply strict formulas which we today package as headliners but which are not well founded in the literature in that kind of way. There are all sorts of combinations that apply in different contexts.

I would say that even if a person were only to embrace the "no supernatural gods", "no life after death," "no eternal forms/essences," "not virtue but pleasure," and "ground reasoning in the senses (and maybe one or two more I am forgetting) then even a simple set of views like that would be ample to serve as a unifying perspective for considering oneself an Epicurean fellow-traveler. Even this list could be shortened - you have to start somewhere.

At least from my own perspective, having friends with those general viewpoints would be more than sufficient reward for the effort we put into studying Epicurus.

As to the bracelets and symbolism I see that as useful but differing widely by context.

Early in our discussion of the text in this episode, Cicero brings up the very interesting case of Hieronymous the Rhodian. Cicero overall seems to live Hieronymous more than Epicurus, because Hieronymous holds "absence of pain" to be the chief good, and not "pleasure" as does Epicurus.

The example of how dramatically differently Hieronymous and Epicurus viewed "absence of pain" and "pleasure," and how Cicero recognized that they were viewed differently in ancient philosophy - is in my view one of the most compelling pieces of evidence that we today need to be very careful not to assume that we know what "absence of pain" meant to Epicurus. Hieronymous clearly understood "absence of pain" to be something different than pleasure, and in fact Hieronymous denounced pleasure. Epicurus takes the opposite approach, praising pleasure, and considering pleasure, not "absence of pain" as the correct term for the goal of life.

Past discussion of this is here:

Thread

Are You Epicurean Or Hieronymian?

According to Doctrine 3, Epicurus held that the limit of quantity of pleasure is the absence of pain. This is a function of the truism / premise that there are only two feelings - pleasure and pain - which means that in quantity, the measurement that describes the "absence" of the one is the same measurement as the "presence" of the other. But this observation is limited to quantity - it has nothing to do with the quality or the detail of the type of pleasure (or pain) that is being…

Cassius

October 1, 2019 at 2:08 PM

We'll take up this question (what does "evil" really mean to Epicurus and to us?) near the beginning of the next episode, so any comments or suggestions will be appreciated.

Great looking site, Eikadistes!

I adjusted the title of the podcast to better address what we're about to cover. There are lots of implications in considering pain to be "the greatest evil" or even "an evil at all." In this first episode we don't dive headlong into what "evil" is supposed to be, mainly because I was absent and a slow-witted impersonator did not realize that we ought to start quickly with that question. However we'll come back to that in future episodes, and we'll want to consider how Epicurus is using the term "evil" in statements such as:

PD10. If the things that produce the pleasures of profligates could dispel the fears of the mind about the phenomena of the sky, and death, and its pains, and also teach the limits of desires (and of pains), we should never have cause to blame them: for they would be filling themselves full, with pleasures from every source, and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life.

PD28. The same knowledge that makes one confident that nothing dreadful is eternal or long-lasting also recognizes, in the face of these limited evils, the security afforded by friendship.

PD34. Injustice is not an evil in itself, but only in consequence of the fear which attaches to the apprehension of being unable to escape those appointed to punish such actions.

Menoeceus:

[124] For the statements of the many about the gods are not conceptions derived from sensation, but false suppositions, according to which the greatest misfortunes befall the wicked and the greatest blessings (the good) by the gift of the gods. For men being accustomed always to their own virtues welcome those like themselves, but regard all that is not of their nature as alien. Become accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us. For all good and evil consists in sensation, but death is deprivation of sensation.

But the many at one moment shun death as the greatest of evils, at another (yearn for it) as a respite from the (evils) in life. (But the wise man neither seeks to escape life) nor fears the cessation of life, for neither does life offend him nor does the absence of life seem to be any evil. And just as with food he does not seek simply the larger share and nothing else, but rather the most pleasant, so he seeks to enjoy not the longest period of time, but the most pleasant.

[129] Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided.

[130] Yet by a scale of comparison and by the consideration of advantages and disadvantages we must form our judgment on all these matters. For the good on certain occasions we treat as bad, and conversely the bad as good. - (Can we presume here "bad" = "evil" ?)

[134] For, indeed, it were better to follow the myths about the gods than to become a slave to the destiny of the natural philosophers: for the former suggests a hope of placating the gods by worship, whereas the latter involves a necessity which knows no placation. As to chance, he does not regard it as a god as most men do (for in a god’s acts there is no disorder), nor as an uncertain cause (of all things) for he does not believe that good and evil are given by chance to man for the framing of a blessed life, but that opportunities for great good and great evil are afforded by it.

Quote from Don

Although, the more Epicureans; the more likelihood of schisms and denominations. Three vs four legs is just the tip of the iceberg.

Very possibly true, but there is also "strength in numbers"

And I doubt any of us here already have to worry too much. Most of us are probably natural born contrarians anyway so we'll always find reasons for schism no matter how few or many of us there are

I liked the last post, and I think the final sentence is correct as of the moment - that's what we're doing at this forum.

Quote from Don

The most we can do is try to get a deeper understanding of the philosophy out there and encourage sincere students of Epicurus.

But I would hope and expect that to change in the future. All roads point back to Epicurus as the best of the ancient philosophers, and it is only natural and identified by Epicurus that living our happiest lives requires us to find and live among friends of Epicurean outlook.

I would expect as people get more motivated to take action in various ways of life, more people will see that emulating the formation of multiple centers of Epicurean cooperation will happen too. So I write just to emphasize that the "all we can" is limited to "under the present state of affairs," and that "present state of affairs" will almost certainly change. And hopefully multiple people reading these discussions will help change that!

1 - It's good to hear from Onenski!

2 - I agree with most everything Don and Onenski have written.

3 - I want to emphasize the underlined part of the wikipedia entry:

Quote

No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one modifies a prior claim in response to a counterexample by asserting the counterexample is excluded by definition. Rather than admitting error or providing evidence to disprove the counterexample, the original claim is changed by using a non-substantive modifier such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", or other similar terms.

As I see it, it's important to see that the "no true Scotsman fallacy" does not mean that the thrust of the position being taken is not statistically true. All this "fallacy" is saying is that if you want to be precise about your assertion, you should explain and be prepared to prove - more than just asserting it to be true - why the counterexample being thrown in your face is an exception to the generalization.

Just because your uncle Angus puts sugar on his porridge does not prove that as a cultural generalization, 99% of Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge. The only thing that the "fallacy" says is that if someone can point to an exception, then the "rule" is not true 100% of the time, and so if one wants to be precisely accurate, what needs to say is "the great majority of Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge."

BOTH can be true at the same time: (1) your uncle DOES put sugar on his porridge, and (2) 99% of Scotsmen do not. There is no conflict between those two positions, but to say "No true Scotsman" or "No Scotsman" puts sugar on his porridge is overbroad.

Some cases call for precision more than do others, and asserting the Scotsman fallacy can sometimes be ridiculous itself when everyone knows that the person is stating a generalization rather than really meaning that there are no exceptions. However it's always good to be precise when issues are complex, such as when Onenski wrote:

Quote from Onenski

It’s possible that Epicurus also thought that we all act in pursuit of pleasure (i.e., hedonistically), and if we acknowledged this, we’d avoid many mistakes and sufferings by directly seeking what brings us the most long-term pleasure.

I commonly say that myself, and I think it's sometimes or even often true. But I think it's important to remember that in the letter to Menoeceus Epicurus said specifically that time is not only or overriding factor, thus "long-term" is not quite right. It's "the greatest pleasure" which might or might not necessarily be the "long-term" choice.

[126] ... And just as with food he does not seek simply the larger share and nothing else, but rather the most pleasant, so he seeks to enjoy not the longest period of time, but the most pleasant.

So precision is generally a good idea. No true Epicurean would want to be less than clear!

Quote from Kalosyni

lives neither as a secluded ascetic, nor as sleepy sluggard or addict, nor as a wild bohemian party animal, nor as a work-aholic -- but instead finds a pleasing and pleasant sense of a well functioning life.

All of which are theoretically perfectly acceptable lifestyles, and in fact in some instances may be a rational choice, but which we also recognize as generally leading to unhappy / unpleasant results including sickness, disease, isolation, and earlier-than-otherwise death, for which reason it is generally good advice to avoid them.

Quote

PD10. If the things that produce the pleasures of profligates could dispel the fears of the mind about the phenomena of the sky, and death, and its pains, and also teach the limits of desires (and of pains), we should never have cause to blame them: for they would be filling themselves full, with pleasures from every source, and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life.

Please note: If you are new and interested in attending Sunday Zooms, visit this other thread to post your RSVP and to receive the link.

*****************************

I'm going to add an announcement box that I'll conduct a Zoom meeting this Sunday the 18th at 12:30 PM Eastern Time. I don't expect that most of our regulars will be there but they are of course welcome, and anyone who's new who would like to attend can post here or message me to ask for the link. I think Rolf will be there and we probably need one more session to deal getting to know people who don't regularly attend our existing zooms, with general discussion and questions, and then we'll work up a structure to go over an outline of the main topics in the future.

Quote from Rolf

What kind of “clinical issues” would discount somebody from achieving a proper grasp on Epicurean philosophy, in your view?

I don't know that it makes sense to try to come up with a distinct list, but I would analogize this with saying that someone born blind is not likely in the nature of things to become a good airline pilot or brain surgeon. Of course that's through no fault of their own, but in the absence of highly advanced technology such a goal for someone born blind would be as unrealistic as it would be for us to hope to live forever. Likewise some people are born with diseases or limitations of brain function that makes it highly unlikely for them to be able to understand anything of complicated intellectual nature.

There's a legal saying that "hard cases make bad law." In other words, the very unusual cases we're talking about don't often lead to useful generalizations, when the great majority of cases aren't really hard cases at all.

In regard to Epicurus, Cicero complained that it was among the simplest of philosophies, and Cicero looked down his nose at the ordinary people who took to it. (We have a graphic on the front page of the forum about that.) In other words, it's my view that the great majority of people can benefit from a philosophy that teaches getting in touch with reality rather than fantasy.

Quote from Rolf

There are many people with chronic physical or mental illnesses that can be mitigated but not removed - would Epicurus say that these people lack the “physical constitution” to be wise?

As regrettable as that might be, I think the answer to that question is clearly "Yes." Now "wise" has many shades to it, and i don't think there's an absolute definition that applies to everyone. But there are in my view clearly lines of clinical issues where it's going to be unreasonable to say that such and such a person is "wise."

Quote from Rolf

This one has always been a bit prickly for me. If Epicureanism is a philosophy that is beneficial for everyone, and wisdom is so vital for prudently pursuing pleasure, then the idea that certain people are involuntarily unable to work towards this feels rather deflating. What is one to do if they lack the “physical constitution” or live in the “wrong nation”? Does Epicureanism still have something to offer such people, or are they better off looking elsewhere for pleasure and the reduction of pain?

The first thing to work to improve the "physical constitution" and get out of the "wrong nation" if at all possible. That in itself is a huge offering because it tells people not to wallow in their bad circumstances (not to "accept" them) if they can be changed.

If those circumstances cannot be changed, then what those people have is an extremely unfortunate situation that is thankfully very rare -- when you have absolutely no way to make things better. Then if there are truly no alternatives, one can exit the stage, but that is not going to be the case for almost anyone except in extreme conditions.

I have seen the argument that this is "deflating" but it is also reality, and it need not be deflating depending on one's attitude toward reality. It seems to me that the problem with thinking that "something has to be doable" when the situation really is beyond repair is a form of mysticism that often combines itself (in my view) with modern "humanism" of the kind that gets into regular debates about things like "all men are equal." Yes we would like them to be, and many of us take action to make things as equal as possible in many respects, but with our current technology there's nothing you can do to change a 100 year old person with terminal cancer into a 20 year old with perfect health. That's the kind of thing that in my view has to be "accepted" for now. If we want to change it, then we do whatever we can to advance medical science to the point where that might be possible. But where it isn't possible, that's the kind of thing we have to "accept."

And one more point: looking for answers to situations that are truly impossible to change seems to be what leads many people to supernatural religion. Would Epicurus suggest that people who refuse to accept reality take up supernatural religion?

I don't think so. That's a discussion worthy to pursue to, but I would say that Epicurus would not suggest that. I would say that Epicurus was so invested (properly) in living with Nature and with reality that he would find it intolerably painful to choose to abandon nature for something fictional.