Posts by Cassius

Yes absolutely and I think what you're saying is very clear. But I think we are going to find that when we review the Epicurean material that still exists that there is good reason to think that what you're saying there is something they would readily accept. I think what the ancient debate was all about is the next step beyond the statistical analysis method, and that the statistical analysis focus today might actually be a regression.

They seem to have been grappling with "what is certainty" and "can any level of statistical analysis ever be worthy of being called 'certainty'" and issues that seem very close to being word games, but which some people take very seriously, even those who are at the cutting edge of whatever science is available to them.

Yes there has, Susan, but I think it is critical to (1) not let personalities get in the way of understanding, and (2) that we find ways to continue cooperation and to work together even where there is not complete unanimity.

The most difficult issue is to decide when an issue rises to such a level that we can't accept anything less than totally separating ourselves from another person or approach.

And I don't think it is something that can be decided by statistics (a reference to another current discussion! ) We can be 98% in agreement with someone else, but if we find that 2% is critically important then we often ignore the sheer quantity of agreement.

What I find so frustrating is that i think THESE are the issues that are core to what Epicurus was teaching, and it's THESE issues (divinity, methods of inference, infinity and eternality and non-supernaturalness) that we need to focus on and understand. and I don't think modern discussion of Epicurus has even broken the surface of this.

Instead, the commentators are hyperfocused on "the greatest pleasure is the absence of pain" and they ignore all of these deeper issues which I think alone can allow someone to understand what Epicurus was saying about pleasure.

I am glad you posted the video because I don't think I was aware of it and this gives us the chance to review it. I regret that people coming across videos like this will think as a result of watching them that the statements made in them are absolutely correct and true to Epicurus, because many of them I don't think are correct at all. But in the end all that any of us can do it the best we can -- all we can do is present our positions and our reasons for taking those positions.

Quote from Elayne

That is an important issue, and it's where statistics come in. We use things like p values and control groups to tell us how likely it is that our results are to be different from chance. We can choose how certain we want to be about a particular conclusion.

I see this as the key to the issue. There is, so far as I know, no bright line that statistics themselves can provide -- there is ultimately some other standard, outside of statistics itself, which ultimately governs what "p value" we are going to accept and "how certain" we want to be. Ultimately there remains a key decision, above simple statistics, that we have to decide how to live with. is that not correct?

Did I hear it correctly at 1:58 that it is foolish to celebrate festivals "if gods are indifferent to us?"

That's way too ambiguous. As stated (if I heard correctly) it is a statement that gods take an interest in us. I feel sure that the texts (even Philodemus) don't say that, and that the point is rather more like "the issue of divinity is not a matter of indifference to us" which is a totally different point.

That's one precise point of the video we need to examine.

Edit 1: I want to be fair and say that a lot of effort went into the video and there are parts I think are good. I particular liked the graphic of the couple climbing the mountain as appropriate for what was said from about 3:00 to about 3:45

At the 5:00 minute mark or so there is a strong assertion that people "originally" had better anticipations of the gods than later. I question the accuracy of that statement.

I think it's dangerous and not warranted to imply to close a relationship between Epicurus and Theodorus the Cyreniac.

At 6:50, a reference to natural selection in the development of the gods? I have to think that is a pure overlay on the part of the commentator and I don't know of any text reference that would support that (?), as it would be taking a position on whether gods have a beginning, which I don't recall there to be anything on (?)

At 7:26 Epicurus advised us to pray? Are we sure of that specifically?

At 8:00 he cites George Kaplanis, who is Elli's friends. I am not able to confirm immediately what George's views are but just making a note that knowing his more complete views would be useful for evaluating the quote.

At 9:22 the reference to "Epicurean justice based on social contract" is a loaded reference to a very controversial subject.

As to that, oh no - quoting very specific material like that without drilling down to the precise text to determine its context and what extent it is reconstructed vs trustworthy is very dangerous. This concern I have underlies everything about many of the texts of Philodemus, which are except in rare instances in very poor condition. Maybe this particular translation is rock solid, but these texts don't deserve the same deference as Diogenes Laertius, Cicero, or some of the other core texts.

I would repeat that caution with much more force in regard to this quote about "doing no harm to anyone" and "make themselves harmless to everyone" and "make themselves noble."

Same caveat here and on every reference to "noble"

At 11:47: "the true purpose of religion, which is to abide in pleasure." Making note of this as a very broad statement which may be easy to misinterpret.

At 12:50 it is suggested that the "realist" view of gods (a term i don't like) was the "original" view of the Epicureans, but that "some later" Epicureans adopted an idealist interpretations. Who is he referring to here as the "some later Epicureans"? I think he's probably referring to Hiram himself and current people now alive, because I am not aware that any actual ancient Epicurean from the ancient world and familiar with the texts took that position. That is a huge point and should not be glossed over. The "idealist" interpretation is not supported by any credible ancient Epicurean, so far as I know. If there are such examples it would be important to bring them forward and highlight them, because otherwise I think the inference from the evidence is that anyone who was actually an Epicurean and had access to Epicurean texts either followed Epicurus and considered them "real," or implied that Epicurus was lying about the whole thing.

Oh this is an August 2020 video so I have not seen it yet -- is that Alan's voice and is this primarily his video?

That's because I was so furiously typing on this subject with comments i think are pretty important that I wanted to be sure to get in as the second poster!

it's updated now.

Ha! That's a very logical thing to post, but you have hit upon a sensitive area that I want to immediately comment on even before watching this video (which I don't recall from memory).

Speaking for myself only, I've had significant back and forth discussion with Hiram (leader of the Society of Epicurus) for many years, and I consider him a friend within the broad meaning of that word. I wish him success in his Epicurean endeavors, but there are many important differences in the approach which Hiram has chosen to pursue vs what I and a number of the other core regulars have chosen to pursue. One way of getting a handle on those differences would be to review the very long thread here: Discussion of the Society of Epicurus' 20 Tenets of 12/21/19

I will need to watch the video before commenting further, but I think we all should be honest with ourselves and with each other about our own dispositions. I am personally not well disposed toward "eastern" philosophies or their cultural aspects, because I associate them in my mind with viewpoints about life which I find unattractive and which I think conflict with Epicurean philosophy at very basic levels. Obviously not everyone has the same associations and same reactions, and it's helpful to everyone to explore and understand differences so as to better understand the issues and what they think themselves.

I don't like to air my own dispositions any more than necessary, but I do so in this case because in past years there have clearly been different "camps" among our friends, consisting of those who are well-disposed toward "eastern cultural symbolism" and those who "are not" (to put it mildly). I am definitely not the only one in that camp but I probably ought not reference anyone but myself. So as a general principle of the forum I think our core people have had a consensus to focus on Greco-Roman/Epicurean material as a means of building our own community, deemphasizing "eclecticism" in favor of first and primarily highlighting and understanding the Epicurean tradition.

I want to stress that these comments aren't directed at Susan for posting this or at Hiram for having the views and methods that he does, but just to set a reminder baseline of some background history.

This is all very complex but I think the Epicureans would assert that reasoning by analogy is in fact the very definition of amassing evidence before coming to a conclusion, and of what is today thought of as the best scientific method.

Its inconceivable that the Epicureans would have turned their back on any true discoveries of Aristotle or anyone else, or would have failed to use a common sense approach to problem solving such as testing alternatives before choosing among them. It seems to me the issue is more probably how they choose to handle the philosophical implications of limitations in evidence, which is inherent always in beings which are not "omniscient." That's the most basic level of this issue I think - recognizing that we never have all the information we would like to have, and deciding how to move forward giving that fact.

I think in this review we want to examine Francis Wright's extended discussion of observation vs. Theory in AFDIA. I still tend to think that her analysis there ends up being the conclusion of one line of thinking on this topic, but I am not sure anymore how to categorize it. At the moment I am only 50% confident that it follows the position that Elayne is asserting, but I think there is at least that 50% chance that it does.

The only thing I am 100% confident of is that the topic we are discussing now is of extreme importance and that I (and I think many of us) have not devoted sufficient time to it.

Quote from Elayne

Although reasoning by analogy was a stopping point then, continued observations of nature have taught us analogy is insufficient. It can generate hypotheses which then are tested. Testing of hypotheses-- making predictions based on a hypothesis and observing the results-- had not been discovered yet

That paragraph from Elayne points to series of questions that will require a lot of detail, starting at least with:

1. "Have taught us that analogy is insufficient." That is the question. What was the Epicurean method in full, and how did they deal with the obvious issues that can arise from use of analogy? We know they were using analogy in part, but probably not in whole and alone, and apparently they were trying to tie analogy as tightly as possible to empirical observation. There is apparently a lot of detail in the texts that do survive, as they were challenged in their methodology by the Stoics, and they composed extensive responses in reply.
2. "Testing of hypotheses... had not been discovered yet." I suspect that that will require a lot of review in order to predict how the Epicureans would respond to that. I think that's really the issue here, that of grasping a workable understanding of the issues involved that can be understood by a normal person and applied in real life -- because if all we come up with is a hugely complicated formula with a lot of variables, our result isn't usable in real life, and we are left back with a "faith" issue of how to pick those scientists whose methods we don't understand, but whom we decide to trust.

That's why I think Philodemus' book is particularly useful as it helps us flesh out these issues so we can come to something understandable and workable.

This is the last of the major points I wanted to drop here before coming back later. The Epicureans were referring to something known as "inconceivability:"

This one I include because I think it should remind us of the very opening section of Lucretius, where Epicurus is praised for exploring nature with his mind and coming back to us to explain the "limits and boundaries set forever" which he found in his exploration:

I will include this principle because the issue involved seems clear and simple and important. Dionysius is an opponent of the Epicurean method:

As to this paragraph, it is necessary to elaborate on what is meant by "contraposition." I need to look that up again and come back with an elaborate definition, but I think it is safe to generalize and say that "contraposition" refers to a method of reasoning using a logical syllogism, or in even simpler terms, "an argument based on logic," i think the meaning of this paragraph is that the Epicureans held that arguments based on at least a certain type of logic are "valid only in so far as they are supported by analogy." It's tempting to rewrite that as "arguments based on a certain type of logic are based valid only in so far as they are supported by direct evidence," but it seems likely to me that "reasoning by analogy" is actually a reference to "reasoning by circumstantial evidence."

In answer to the question "When is it proper to reason by analogy and when is it not?" we have this:

One issue that has already come up in recent discussions is that posed by "exceptions to what we think is a general rule," Does not the frequency in which we discover exceptions to the rules which we think we know show that it is improper to ever generalize by analogy, from matters we have observed, to assert a conclusion about matters on which we have no direct evidence? In response to that, check this paragraph:

Elayne and i have been having some discussions which I think are going to lead back to the material in "On Methods of Inference" ("OMOI") and I would like to tackle the task of identifying "Just What Is The Argument Presented in On Methods of Inference?" In other words, before getting into the details, can we at least begin to get a handle on what the argument was about?

The primary source material I have found most helpful on OMOI is the book by Phillip and Estelle De Lacy. Their introduction and their endnotes are extensive and I think bring some degree of clarity to a very complex topic, but even with all those notes is difficult to get a handle on what the issues were, and what the Epicurean position was on those issues. So in the following excerpts and comments I am going to try to make a start at grasping the big picture, and I hope others will see what they can do to help.

First, I think I have identified two key paragraphs in the introduction which purport to be a summary of the main issues of the work. Unfortunately the meaning of the terminology in them about "contraposition" and "common and particular signs" is not immediately clear, but at least this gives us a place to start. In the end, it appears to me that we're ultimately after a formula by which we can decide how to attack things for which there is no direct evidence. In other words - in legal terms - we are talking about the proper method of using circumstantial evidence, and when (if ever) it is possible to state a conclusion with confidence based on evidence that is only circumstantial. This material, and the excerpts that follow, begin on page 13 of the text.

I am going to read more and enter more comments on this thread, but if someone already has a command of this material and wants to try to shortcircuit the need for a deep dive into this subject, please feel free to jump in and save us all some time!

Failing that, I think this is an issue that underlays a great deal of Epicurean philosophy, and explains how it differs from competing philosophies, and also probably explains how different people who consider themselves to be within the Epicurean tradition can find themselves reaching different conclusions based on much the same evidence. I don't want to distract @Susan Hill from her current project, but I think the issues involved here are going to have a deep impact on how we should understand the conclusions of Epicurus on divinity as well as on many other matters.

So from here let's go further and see what we can read from the signs.

Yes - the prime material from the Velleius (Epicurean section) is here: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/index.php?…re-of-the-gods/

However there is certainly other commentary by the non-Epicurean speakers that will be relevant to understanding the Epicurean parts.

Just a note to Susan and everyone who hasn't run into this before: If you paste directly from other programs you'll sometimes get the font transferred as well, such as this:

While it is not always true, I think it's probably best for the forum if we try to keep the font styles to the default, so I'll sometimes go in and edit a post to remove the extra fonts.

If you paste something and see that the font is different than the norm, the way to fix it is to use the dropdowns such as "A" for font family and T for size and choose the last option to "remove" that characteristic.

Again, no issues, and I'll sometimes go ahead and make this change without mentioning it just in the interests of time. Thanks!

EDIT: I meant to mention, more important even than font style and size is COLOR. Some people use dark themes ("styles") here for the forum, and others use "light" themes. Color can make a dramatic impact on readability, so above all please be sure to remove any "color" attributes when pasting.

OK I have gone ahead and rearranged the forum structure as per the discussions, and since this topic has so many subissues where I would expect comment in the future, I did go ahead and split it off from Physics. No doubt more fine-tuning will be needed so as always let me know what changes people propose.

Epicurean Divinity is a huge topic, especially because it differs in so many interesting ways from the theologies of mainstream organized religion, or the state-sponsored religion of Epicurus’ own time. Unfortunately, very little of the original writings on the subject have survived; however, from secondary period sources referring directly to the original teachings, we can still glean a great deal about the original doctrines of the Epicurean School of Philosophy. For those to whom these teachings prove personally appealing, we can even examine ways in which Epicurean views of divinity may be applied today.

This forum includes several main sections. The first, “Relevant Texts”, gathers together the textual source material pertaining to Epicurean theology, while the second consists of the sub-topics. Areas for exploration and discussion. include Epicurean Piety, Images of the Gods, Anticipations of the Gods, The Material Nature of the Gods, The Origin, Life, and Potential Death of the Gods, The Relationship of Non-Intervention Between Gods and Humans, and The Appearance of the Gods.

Threads on these topics or similar can be created by users as their pleasure prompts them. Links can be created referring to the source material to support ideas expressed.

As we proceed here we need to go forward with some procedural standards to apply when evaluating the texts on statements about the gods. These should be:

1) Epicurus' own words take precedence over all other source material. Anywhere Epicurus leaves room for different interpretations is not narrowed down by commentary from other sources, such as Philodemus or DeWitt. Neither will individual quotes be taken out of context with his whole body of work.

2) The process of determining what is real takes precedence over details of prior or current conclusions. When new data is available that Epicurus didn't have, we agree to present both what he concluded based on information available to him _and_ revisions which are necessary to continue adhering to his process of observing nature and trusting the senses. We agree that such revisions are an embedded expectation in a philosophy based on observations of nature, and that to ignore new data is to distort Epicurus' intentions beyond recognition.

3) Prolepses are subject to the same verification process as any other sense data and are not to be given special status when the combined sense evidence contradicts them, no matter how compelling they are. We will not say prolepses are infallible when the content is in the form of a conclusion about reality. This is the same as we do not say a straw in a glass of water is bent because it looks to be so from one view. Instead, we examine it from different positions and touch it. We combine our senses to test any conclusion. A sensation about gods from an intuition or dream is not a mistake in the same way seeing an optical illusion is not a mistake, but assumptions about the _cause_ of those intuitions and dreams is a matter up for verification by the other senses. We must especially beware of making assertions of material fact on grounds that we received special knowledge due to a prepared mind, because this closes off the importance of examination by the senses.

(Note: The above "standards of interpretation" was added here October 28, 2020. It is subject to revision as we proceed, and will likely be added to the forum as a whole along with the "Not Neo-Epicurean But Epicurean" statement as we have more experience with it.)

Since it's not strictly "Apollo" I gather, maybe your "Lord and Healer" makes better sense.