Posts by Cassius

Aside: Just so I personally don't get lost in our current discussion, I am reminding myself that this is where we started, with Mike's post on FB:

Quote from Cassius

"Mental pleasure exists only when you have peace of mind. Peace of mind exists only when you have no more fears and worries. Fears and worries exist only if you are still wanting. You are still wanting only when you have no limit in what you want."

I am still not sure that the "physical" question of whether we can experience pain and pleasure in different parts of our body at once is really the issue, although that will be interesting to continue discussing and possibly answer.

The original question was more like: "whether the uses of "only" in this set of propositions are an accurate restatement of Epicurean views" which I don't think is necessarily the same issue.

And I continue to think to myself that we need to keep in mind that (in my opinion) this entire issue came up first in context of a LOGICAL argument (the refutation of Plato's arguments in Philebus) rather than a "medical" or a "clinical" context. I suspect that is highly relevant to this discussion because I think the main focus is really on the logical point that nature gives us no faculty of choice other than pleasure or pain, very broadly considered as "feeling." And that would mean that the primary issue Epicurus was addressing was probably "feeling vs reason" or "feeing vs religion" and not "whether pleasure in toes can simultaneously exist with pain in fingers." Because if a third guide exists that would tell us how to regulate choices between pleasure and pain, then that guide would be more important than pleasure and would deserve the title "guide of life." In Epicurean terms reason and logic and wisdom and virtue and the rest cannot meet that test, because they are still simply tools for the attainment of the feeling of pleasure, so pleasure always remains in primary seat.

So I doubt Epicurus was concerned with the question of whether he was multi-threaded or single threaded in experiencing intense physical pain alongside intense mental pleasure on the last day of his life. He might say to us that whether he was experiencing them simultaneously, or flipping back and forth between them as his attention refocused, would not be important to the discussion. He might say that the only thing important to the discussion was that FEELING (not "reason" or religion or the rest) remained his guide to the last moment.

Not arguing Mike, but why does that example seem to be a clear indication to you? Maybe we have a different definition of single-threaded?

Quote from Godfrey

If I get engrossed in a good book I feel pleasure even though the pain of sickness is still there, I'm just not perceiving it.

Quote from Godfrey

Which brings also to mind the much more extreme example of Epicurus on his deathbed, where he was enjoying pleasurable memories even while dying a painful death.

These are both examples that I think I would use to suggest that different perceptions (one of pleasure and another of pain) can exist simultaneously and us be aware of both at the same time?

When you are sick Godfrey are you actually completely oblivious to how bad you feel when you read?

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

Our sensation such as our eyes must not be discriminated from our consciousness.

I guess this is ultimately the same question, but I am not sure that PD24 answers the question. In fact does not PD24 indicate that "you" are conscious of separately evaluating multiple perceptions at the same time?

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

Human consciousness on the other hand is single-threaded.

I am not necessarily disagreeing at this moment, but it is not self-evidently clear to me that this is correct. I would like to know what Elli and Elayne (and of course others too) think about this.

Mike if someone were to dispute you on that point what would you point to as authority or evidence?

And would saying that consciousness is single threaded mean that we cannot be aware of more than a single feeling of pleasure and pain at one time? Maybe discussing "single or multi-threaded" becomes a rabbit hole not to pursue, but i think the general issue probably ought to be made clear.

Ok you are talking about separate parts of the body and presumably then separate perceptions (1. pleasurable perception from the tongue / taste and 2. perception of pain from the stomach ulcer.

I too would think that both of those can be experienced simultaneously, but I suppose someone could say that the attention could focus on only one at a time.

Maybe the issue is whether for purposes of discussing pain and pleasure (applying computer analogies) human consciousness is single-threaded or multi-threaded (?)

Right I am definitely with you there but would clarify, when you say this:

"My pleasure in my mouth can be pain in my stomach, but the pain in my stomach can't have any pleasure at the same time."

Do you mean that the pleasure in your mouth can *lead to* pain in your stomach? Otherwise I may not understand your point.

Great discussion Mike thank you. We are not very far apart at all.

Where I am thinking that greater precision could be gained is an issue I have discussed with Elayne. Are pain and pleasure "cumulative" summaries of all feelings being perceived at a particular moment? What happens when (for example) your eye relays a scene that you find pleasurable, while at the same time your toe is hurting from an ingrown nail? The eye (or some other part of the body perceiving a sensation that is pleasurable) is relaying information simultaneously with the toe perceiving pain. Definitely both perceptions are different and we are talking about either pleasure OR pain, we fully agree that there can be only one or the other.

But i don't think that Epicurus' theory requires (or even allows) that we sum up our total perceptions into one sum that is either pleasurable or painful, and I think that would be required for the "only" parts of your statements to be valid.

Now, it might be arguable that you can only pay attention to one thing at one time, and that you will register that feeling at the instant that you direct your attention to the toe as painful, and then change your assessment in another instant as you direct your attention to your eye. Is that the position that you wish to argue, or that you think Epicurus was contemplating?

I am open to the idea that the mind can only be aware of one thing at a time, but that doesn't seem intuitively true to me, so I am not yet convinced that that is what Epicurus would have been thinking about. Summation of all feelings/perceptions into a sum, and saying that your consciousness can only feel pain or pleasure at a single instant, seems to me to cause problems (such as creating the kind of "mixed states" which he pretty clearly wanted to avoid). It may seem like i myself am the one advocating mixed states, but I am saying that i think Epicurus was talking at the perceptual level, and saying that a particular perception can only be painful OR pleasurable, rather than saying that we can't be aware of more than one thing at a single time. In fact that's exactly what I think is involved in viewing life as a "vessel" which contains discrete experiences of pain and pleasure, with the goal of eliminating from the vessel all experiences of pain and having the vessel be full of experiences of pleasure.

Quote from Hiram

dismissed by Alex because, in an expanding universe paradigm, we are getting further away from the intercosmia and therefore the particles would eventually no longer reach us. This is just another problem with the realist position. Are we content to state something knowing that we will remain forever without evidence for it?

The "expanding universe" paradigm, to the extent it refers to "everything," is not Epicurean and I personally reject it on the same grounds Epicurus would -- it is inconceivable that the universe has a limit. This is not a problem with the realist position, but a problem with someone accepting "scientific" speculation based on incomplete evidence that contradicts something that is logically compelled. To the extent "expanding universe" is valid it refers (presumably) to what has been observed so far, and presumes that these observations are correct and can be taken to overrule something that is logically compelled by other compelling evidence (nothing comes from nothing or goes to nothing and the chain of reasoning that leads to infinite universe). There is no way that both can be true, and the likelihood is therefore that we either have not observed far enough out, or we are misinterpreting or misapplying the results of the evidence so far.

Note: Referring to Alex here does bring back memories too, and this I think is an area where i disagreed with Alex. I think Alex (in following the expanding universe model to the detriment of the bigger picture being the universe as unlimited in size) is committing the "error" that I think we are discussing here. Alx is very very much into "science" which is very admirable, but I frequently detected that this issue we are discussing is something where he and I disagreed. When "science" appears to contradict something as fundamental as infinite / eternal universe, then I am not going to easily accept that "science' is right without a tremendously more powerful expression of proof than I am away that the theoreticians can bring to bear.

Just the same with the religionists -- truly raise someone from the dead in circumstances that are beyond dispute and then we'll talk about supernatural gods and an afterlife.

Quote from Hiram

Concerning the accusation that Epicurus was hypocritical, that is one possibility,

Not a possibility that I myself would ever admit!

I noticed this morning that we had a spam entry selling some kind of antivirus software. That reminds me that some of us have been discussing that to date the EpicureanFriends.com forum is largely "open" and anyone can post after joining without requiring an vetting beforehand.

I think that has been a logical procedure while we were getting off the ground, but over the last two years thanks to the participants here we now have a substantial set of good conversations, so we can start to become more selective in the future. I plan to work on revising the user groupings and privileges to address that. If anyone has comments or suggestions on how to organize that please post them here. No doubt there will be some bumps in the road as this is implemented so I will apologize beforehand and we'll fix them as needed.

No timetable for this yet but it's on the agenda.

This thread is a continuation of this thought posted by me in a conversation with Oscar:

Getting back to the earlier issue of incorporating new evidence / facts:

Absolutely and Epicurean is always going to look for, observe, and incorporate new facts into his application of the philosophy and how to live.

BUT what is the number one fact that must be considered?

The first and most important fact is that you are a finite being, and you are never going to have access to all of the evidence / facts that you would like to have.

So if that is the case, what do you do?

You start off with a framework of analysis that acknowledges that you are finite, while the universe is infinite, and you perfect your "operating system" - your "philosophy" - that allows you to function confidently within the sphere of facts that are open to you.

That's what Epicurus did, nothing in the intervening centuries has been discovered to change that framework, and that's why his work is valuable today in its original form, rather than being "improved" by all sorts of changes which ultimately fade into significance in the face of the practical need to live and take action in an unlimited universe in which the evidence open to us is limited. Epicurus shows us how to defeat the numbing and paralysing and slavery-inducing effects of standard religious teaching and Academic philosophy.

And that's what I also think is so dangerous about accepting the implication that such and such a scientific theory has it all figured out, or that the "universe" is all expanding from a center, or that Yahweh is the one true god, or whatever. If you keep focus on the logical big picture that the universe is infinite in time and eternal in space, then it's easy to see that all these shortsighted theories are ultimately traps, and it's easy to dismiss them as impossible. That is a huge confidence-builder in the face of nihilism, and it's totally justified by the evidence that is available to us -- nothing in our experience (or in reliable human history) has ever come from, or gone, to nothing.

All the rest is logically deduced from that factually-irrefutable starting point, and that's the test of any valid system of logic - "Does it conform with ALL the facts?"

Relevant Principal Doctrines:

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.

Edit: I also think there is a relationship here with the "gnosis" sects/cults. Any group that claims ultimate possession of all answers through divine revelation, or some process known only to them, is pursuing the same kind of approach, whether that be through talking snakes like Alexander the oracle monger, or reliable on calculations or other "scientific methods" that are represented to claim results that cannot be verified through "hard" evidence.

When we say that we respect "science" what are we really saying? Sounds like to me what that term could only mean is that we respect the "method" of observation and searching and analysis of evidence, rather than deferring to any particular person or theory that anyone, no matter how "qualified," asserts without evidence. There's a passage in A Few Days With Athens that refers to this too.

From Chapter 15:

“I apprehend the difficulties,” observed Leontium, “which embarrass the mind of our young friend. Like most aspirants after knowledge, he has a vague and incorrect idea of what he is pursuing, and still more, of what may be attained. In the schools you have hitherto frequented,” she continued, addressing the youth, “certain images of virtue, vice, truth, knowledge, are presented to the imagination, and these abstract qualities, or we may call them, figurative beings, are made at once the objects of speculation and adoration. A law is laid down, and the feelings and opinions of men are predicated upon it; a theory is built, and all animate and inanimate nature is made to speak in its support; an hypothesis is advanced, and all the mysteries of nature are treated as explained. You have heard of, and studied various systems of philosophy; but real philosophy is opposed to all systems. Her whole business is observation; and the results of that observation constitute all her knowledge. She receives no truths, until she has tested them by experience; she advances no opinions, unsupported by the testimony of facts; she acknowledges no virtue, but that involved in beneficial actions; no vice, but that involved in actions hurtful to ourselves or to others. Above all, she advances no dogmas, — is slow to assert what is, — and calls nothing impossible. The science of philosophy is simply a science of observation, both as regards the world without us, and the world within; and, to advance in it, are requisite only sound senses, well developed and exercised faculties, and a mind free of prejudice. The objects she has in view, as regards the external world, are, first, to see things as they are, and secondly, to examine their structure, to ascertain their properties, and to observe their relations one to the other. — As respects the world within, or the philosophy of mind, she has in view, first, to examine our sensations, or the impressions of external things on our senses; which operation involves, and is involved in, the examination of those external things themselves: secondly, to trace back to our sensations, the first development of all our faculties; and again, from these sensations, and the exercise of our different faculties as developed by them, to trace the gradual formation of our moral feelings, and of all our other emotions: thirdly, to analyze all these our sensations, thoughts, and emotions, — that is, to examine the qualities of our own internal, sentient matter, with the same, and yet more, closeness of scrutiny, than we have applied to the examination of the matter that is without us finally, to investigate the justness of our moral feelings, and to weigh the merit and demerit of human actions; which is, in other words, to judge of their tendency to produce good or evil, — to excite pleasurable or painful feelings in ourselves or others. You will observe, therefore, that, both as regards the philosophy of physics, and the philosophy of mind, all is simply a process of investigation. It is a journey of discovery, in which, in the one case, we commission our senses to examine the qualities of that matter, which is around us, and, in the other, endeavor, by attention to the varieties of our consciousness, to gain a knowledge of those qualities of matter which constitute our susceptibilities of thought and feeling.”

Getting back to the earlier issue of incorporating new evidence / facts:

Absolutely and Epicurean is always going to look for, observe, and incorporate new facts into his application of the philosophy and how to live.

BUT what is the number one fact that must be considered?

The first and most important fact is that you are a finite being, and you are never going to have access to all of the evidence / facts that you would like to have.

So if that is the case, what do you do?

You start off with a framework of analysis that acknowledges that you are finite, while the universe is infinite, and you perfect your "operating system" - your "philosophy" - that allows you to function confidently within the sphere of facts that are open to you.

That's what Epicurus did, nothing in the intervening centuries has been discovered to change that framework, and that's why his work is valuable today in its original form, rather than being "improved" by all sorts of changes which ultimately fade into significance in the face of the practical need to live and take action in an unlimited universe in which the evidence open to us is limited. Epicurus shows us how to defeat the numbing and paralysing and slavery-inducing effects of standard religious teaching and Academic philosophy.

And that's what I also think is so dangerous about accepting the implication that such and such a scientific theory has it all figured out, or that the "universe" is all expanding from a center, or that Yahweh is the one true god, or whatever. If you keep focus on the logical big picture that the universe is infinite in time and eternal in space, then it's easy to see that all these shortsighted theories are ultimately traps, and it's easy to dismiss them as impossible. That is a huge confidence-builder in the face of nihilism, and it's totally justified by the evidence that is available to us -- nothing in our experience (or in reliable human history) has ever come from, or gone, to nothing. All the rest is deduced from that factually-irrefutable starting point.

EDIT: I want to expand on this point in the future so I am setting up this thread in Physics: Proposition: It is not the "science" of Epicurus that should impress us, but rather the "perspective" on science, or, if you will, the "limit" on science.

Excellent point about "cult classics" --- that is a sense of the word that I do think applies. I also think of an analogy to "sports teams" in the modern world. People get very attached to their sports teams/clubs but most of the time they don't lose touch with reality in doing so.

Quote from Oscar

I think that's the least Epicurus requested from us in his dying words, no?

Yes probably so....... I just try to avoid the word "cult" because it has so many connotations of giving up one's independence of thought, which i think is inherently the opposite of what the philosophy teaches. I know that DeWitt used the word -- I suppose the connotations were bad in his day too, but I bet they are worse today. My take is that you can be like Lucretius and revere someone as a father figure or even godlike without giving up your own freedom or crossing the line into thinking that Epicurus could never have been wrong on anything.

Looks like something happened to my graphic clips above. I will try to find them and fix them.

Yes I am going to watch this later but I agree with Elayne, and the part you quoted Oscar seems very unfair to me. I suspect that this is overblown, even to some extent this from DeWitt:

Quote from Oscar

“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 honour of his memory, a sort of sacrament” - Dr. N.W. DeWitt concerning the most revered and the most reviled of all founders of thought in the Graeco-Roman world

To be charitable I would think that this might apply to SOME people, or might apply to YOUNG people who were being trained at younger ages, but I do not think that it is likely accurate to broad-brush the entire school as overly cultish.

I think it is very possible to respect and admire someone and give them the benefit of the doubt when you aren't sure of something yourself, without giving up your own mind and feelings and your own senses and your own evidence, especially when the core of what that person is teaching you is that you MUST use your own mind and feelings and senses to weigh the evidence, since that is how he came up with the philosophy in the first place.

Just to be clear I am not saying that you Oscar have a false view, I am saying that I see in a lot of commentators, especially the more Stoic-minded ones, the tendency to see Epicureans in an unflattering way, which in my mind is likely caused by the fact that they disagree so strongly with Epicurean viewpoints on religion, ethics, etc.

Yes Charles please keep going as you have time. I know Elayne has thoughts on this issue as well. As I see it , it seems to break down for me first into issues of awareness, and being aware of multiple things at the same time, which I think is possible, so that some things you are aware of are pleasurable and others are painful in different parts of your experience at the same time. I would think Epicurus would say that that is possible, but Elayne may have some thoughts on that.

But then there is the theoretical / logical side of this problem, which is where I think Epicurus thought it was important to keep the two in distinct categories without compromise or blending of multiple observations at the same time.

This takes us back to Philebus and the "purity" argument, because if you admit to blends of pleasure and pain then you are faced with the contradiction that you then must have some science that tells you what blend is "best." So long as you keep pain and pleasure separate, pleasure is always desirable and pain is always undesirable, but definition. But if you admit "mixed" states then you are forced to come up with some other standard of choice, other than PLEASURE, by which to choose what mixture is best. This leads you down the path of embracing "Wisdom" or "reason" as the factor by which to choose, and if you make wisdom or reason your ultimate factor of choice, then you end up displacing pleasure as the ultimate guide of life.

I know I am truncating the argument way too much, but I know that this last part I just stated is in Philebus, and I believe it is critical to link Epicurus' arguments to these logical disputes, for which I think they are his answers.

Even if there are reasons to question the "awareness" issues I mention above (and again I cannot recall Elayne's full positions on this) I still think that the logical issues are themselves sufficient to explain Epicurus' argument (though ultimately I think the logical issues and the awareness issues go hand in hand).

Oscar I personally am MUCH more comfortable with graphics, in which I have the ability to make effort, even if not much talent, vs the musical part, at which I have no talent or aptitute whatever. So anything you can piece together on the music side I am happy to work on graphics for.

In the above discussion I don't think that Hiram is including all of the detail that even in the partial form that we have it that Epicurus / Lucretius cited. I think if you check Dewitt you will see that there is both (1) the argument from anticipations, which is most fully preserved in the Velleius narrative in Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods," and (2) the direct receipt of "images" though space by the mind.

Those who reject Epicurus' theory tend to focus on the images argument and blend that into the anticipations argument, but someone attempting to weigh all the evidence of what the texts contain would need to consider both the anticipations argument and the "images" argument.

There's a lot going on in the consideration of Epicurean gods, and my personal viewpoint is that Hiram is hanging too much weight on his own personal weighing of the current state of scientific evidence, which is by definition not complete and is ever changing. It's definitely a problem also to site the evidence that the universe is expanding (that refers to the OBSERVABLE universe) to contradict the Epicurean theoretical position that the universe is boundless in size. I have to admit that that one always bothers me. Just because the part of the universe that we have OBSERVED seems to be expanding from a central point does not countermand the logical deduction that the universe is boundless in size, and that presumably there are all sorts of other areas that are expanding or collapsing or whatever based on their own histories.

To talk about the "universe" as expanding from a center is going to be out of court from the beginning in Epicurean terms. Of course we can go back to the issue of definitions and say that "universe" doesn't mean EVERYTHING, and if so that's fine, but that's not the traditional use of the term "universe."

I looked at some more of the youtube versions of this song. Even if each line needs to truncated severely, it should be easy to fill in the gaps with a slide show / graphic illustrating each principle in much more full form. Then the song line can become the memory device for the full doctrine illustrated in in the picture, kind of like with the Tetrapharmakon