New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
It has been a busy day and ever since I typed that I was concerned that I left out this important caveat: that of course we're not talking about individual consciousnesses having any continuance; that's specifically ruled out by other Epicurean theory -- what I am suggesting just applies to life forms as categories, not individuals.
And yes, in the way you stated it, all the way "up" not just to consciousness but to the state postulated to be that of the Epicurean "gods."
If you understand how "Babis" is derived from that Greek word, please explain it to me! Elli tried to several times, but it never stuck with me. 
Thank you Michele -- that does look interesting - please keep us posted!
Don as to your comment on that book cover, I will follow up with "Babis" on this and get back to you.
Ha - be careful about how deep that challenge might lead. It is my understanding that most of the contemporary Epicureans in Greece are big fans of there being "Four" criteria of truth, so it may lead to an international conflict!
Just today, in my messenger:
Yes that's possible Don, and maybe Diogenes Laertius was just confused. Or maybe you can examine that sentence and find a way that it doesnt add up to their being four.
I think I agree with most of this with the possible exception of this, which might just be that I have an issue with the wording:
we cannot blame and punish other hedonists but rather express condemnation at shortsighted behavior, likewise we cannot fault others who act only on their behalf for the purpose of securing a safe future for themselves, whether financially or physically.
My issue would be that ultimately I think the issues of praise and blame need to be separated from issues of what we do in actual response. We can fully understand a hungry tiger charging toward us to eat us, or to kill us so its infants can eat, but that does not mean that we should hesitate for a second to restrain it from killing us, or hesitate to kill it to stop it from eating us or our friends in the future.
I think this is a function of how there is no universal good or evil - there is only a context in which we must act for "our own" good or that of our friends.
Ultimately I think that is the point of your post but I know people struggle with this because they want a "mutual benefit" result when often that is not a practical possibility, and they don't want to admit that there is no natural or divine or ideal justification that vindicates our desire for the mutual benefit. We can and should act toward that where we can, because it pleases us, but the first step of reality is to see that this desire is based in our own pleasure (when it does exist) rather than divinely annointed.
Oh my gosh what a long and excellent contribution. Thank you Charles - it is going to take me some time to go through this!
About feelings being our best guide to truth.
Now wait, i did not say THAT did I? 
That would probably be going too far. As I read what Epicurus was saying, they are one of the three legs of the canon of truth (and I say with DeWitt that Epicurus was right, and there are only three, not four). So it is important that they function together and one not be elevated as primary over the others, always keeping in mind too that "truth" is something that has to be carefully defined.
philosophy that Nature actively created the pleasure/pain faculty in us to guide us towards wise action (implying a kind of providence), or would Epicurus have actually seen it as modern evolutionary theory would: a byproduct of natural selection?
I go with DeWitt here and would say that it must be the latter -- that Nature did not "actively" or "intentionally" steer things in this direction for us. Nature as a whole has no consciousness or intent.
However, if you'd like to add a layer of "mystery" to this to compensate for the lack of "intent" by nature, I think that similar "mind-blowing" implications can be found in the doctrines of eternality/infinity. I do not think that Epicurus would say that there was ever a "first" intelligent life -- yes a first intelligent life on Earth, for example, but not in the universe as a whole. The implication is that intelligent life, like the universe itself, would have existed eternally in time. (And this is not even considering the category of "gods.") if so, I think it is entirely possible in fact likely that there are and have been and will be instances of intelligent life spreading through the universe from location to location, as we are about to do to the Moon, Mars, and hopefully beyond.
We always have to go on evidence rather than rank speculation, but I rule out nothing in that regard, and it's a pretty clear implication of the issues of isonomia and "nature never creates a single thing of a kind" which are noted in Lucretius and in the Epicurean part of Cicero's On The Nature of The Gods. But the main point is that I think we have to consider the implications of intelligent life being a category that has existed back infinitely in time, just like planets or star systems or other combinations of matter that we know, by the fact that they exist here, are possible.
Susan images should work basically the same way on both desktop or cell, so let us know if you still have problems. I don't know that I have tried on a cell phone so you may have run into something we need to look into.
As to the merits, I think I am in agreement with most of what I have read here. I would analogize this to "trust your eyesight." You know that there are times that your vision is blurry or that there is fog or other reasons that can distort your vision, and require you to check and recheck over time what you are seeing. But sight, regardless, remains one of the canonical faculties and you "trust" it in the sense of "honestly reported" as by a witness in court, using DeWitt's analogy.
I think exactly the same applies to feelings. I think Don's point about reactions is valid but ultimately the words that we understand and apply include feelings, emotions, etc. The main point is that like sight and hearing, feelings are honestly reported to us. They are what they are, and they are to be dealt with accordingly.
Lot's of people advise us to be "in touch with our feelings" and that is a less revolutionary way to look at it but probably similar to what Epicurus was advising.
Probably the main thing to keep in mind is that Epicurus never promises that the canonical faculties, even the five senses, are some automatic and magical gateway to "truth." The opinions we form from our senses are quite frequently wrong at first thought, and maybe even wrong over a lifetime. The same observation applies to feelings. The Canon does not guarantee us omnipotence or omniscience. it is simply and factually the only thing we have that is an "ultimate" faculty for us with which to discover truth. No one guarantees us that we will in fact discover "truths" about everything we'd like to know. The canonical faculties are what are real to us, but that doesn't mean that we are going to use them intelligently.
Over time, and with experience and even training, emotional reactions can become much more accurate, at least for some people. Some people are even known to pay respects to the accuracy of something known as "a woman's intuition" about which I personally know nothing!
Wow that's a lot of work already. I will go through it as soon as I can.
I was wondering if Roger Penrose was still alive -- apparently he is! Thanks Godfrey!
For some reason that link gave me a problem, but this one works for me:
https://www.unz.com/print/NorthAme…PDF&apages=0099
Looks the same, but I couldn't get's Charles to work....
Charles are you able to get that to download a copy of the pdf?
Edit - DUH - I got it -- open up the "tools" icon on the top right of the viewer.
Thanks Don!
contemporary readers of Lucretius would understand that one would need to purge oneself of any competing ideologies before fully accepting the teachings of Epicurus.
i've always been curious about wormwood and whether there was anything behind its choice of an illustration by Lucretius other than its bitterness:
First because I teach about great things, and hasten to free the mind from the close bondage of religion, then because on a dark theme I trace verses so full of light, touching all with the muses’ charm. For that too is seen to be not without good reason; for even as healers, when they essay to give loathsome wormwood to children, first touch the rim all round the cup with the sweet golden moisture of honey, so that the unwitting age of children may be beguiled as far as the lips, and meanwhile may drink the bitter draught of wormwood, and though charmed may not be harmed, but rather by such means may be restored and come to health; so now, since this philosophy full often seems too bitter to those who have not tasted it, and the multitude shrinks back away from it, I have desired to set forth to you my reasoning in the sweet-tongued song of the muses, and as though to touch it with the pleasant honey of poetry, if perchance I might avail by such means to keep your mind set upon my verses, while you take in the whole nature of things, and are conscious of your profit.
This does not answer that, but apparently wormwood is something that is still studied for its medicinal properties:
Just a few more clips from the Second collection of Frances Wright's popular discourses:
She was definitely on Jefferson's side against Hamilton:
Here Frances Wright tells us how she really feels on the issue of what to do with the chartered banks:
The final essay in Volume 2 is "The Sectional Question: On Southern Slavery" =
Ok that pretty much sums up the second collection, which seems much shorter than the first, unless the version I have is an abridgement.
Wow that IS a coincidence, and it's a great idea to investigate William Short. I will try to help but keep us posted on anything you find!
I doubt it is wise or helpful to go too far into discussion of Frances Wright's political opinions, but I do want to save people some time so they don't have to read the full books without some guidance or markers ahead of time. I will LIST a few choice excerpts to show her views, which seem to have been intended to promote a very radical and very sweeping overthrow of almost every aspect of existing society:
(1) Starting around page 166, in the chapter "Existing Evils." Not just universal public schools as we might think of them today, but very strongly regimented public schools for children in which parents are allowed minimal interference, and apparently minimal contact with their children:
(2) The following is not a political opinion, but it is so pointed an indictment of speculation about the nature and origin of the universe that I have to include it as significant to her perspective:
(3) And she carries that forward to advocate a kind of tolerance, that it does not matter if we disagree so long as we keep our opinions about speculations to ourselves (?)
OK at this point I have finished reading the first book of lectures. There is some in it about slavery, but not really a lot, as I would have expected based on reputation. It is really a much deeper blueprint for full societal revolution based on overthrowing the church and existing systems of culture and business, with emphasis on her theory that it is knowledge/observation that much be expanded, while speculation on religious and other matters that cannot be answered should be minimized. I see no discussion whatsoever of the issue of life after death.
Now on to the second book of lectures.
This is just SO fascinating. Wright's target is indeed going to be slavery, but she is not content just to oppose slavery - she sees the source of the movement towrard war -- on both sides -- as caused by financial interests / financial speculators / banks which she identifies as a movement of the "chartered monopolies" promoting their own interests:
And it appears that she singled out as her opposition not mobs of pro-slavery agitators, but "Federal Bank mobs":
Here she denies that she was an abolitionist as that term was generally understood:
Here are her views on what would happen after emancipation, and her views on racial developments later:
I told Elayne that I would read some more into Frances Wright to see if I could pull out particularly interesting sections of her "Courses of Popular Lectures." References here are to the PDF located here.
Here is a notation as to one such section, in Volume I -
I find this very strange. She has published an entire book praising Epicurus to the skies, and putting in his mouth exactly the words that science should be observation, and not theory, which IS consistent with Epicurus' viewpoint.
How then to explain these paragraphs, in which she slams Athenian philosophers without mentioning the exception of Epicurus, and she mentions only Aristotle (I think it is fair to say that that's a negative reference, but it's not clear to me)?
And as the text continues she then turns to praising Pestalozzi, the Christian. Hopefully by the end of this chapter on "religion" it will be clear why she is doing this.
Great line here, as to "Castles in the Air" on page 93:
OK this is important. As the chapter closes, it is clear what is going on -- she has decided that she is going to take the position simply that I DON'T KNOW - and she's not going to take a position on anything other than what she can see in this world -- and in the absence of anything said here, she does not even seem to be taking a position on life after death.
Here then we may have the ultimate dividing line and where she decided to depart from Epicurus:
This exchange from Chapter 14 of A Few Days In Athens always bothered me, because it seemed that she was putting words in Epicurus' mouth that seemed clearly different from what we know about his positions from the ancient texts. I always wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt that somehow she thought there was a way to reconcile this with what he wrote, but now I see that she simply decided to write her own position in as his. Here is the text:
“On leaving you, last night,” said Theon, “I encountered Cleanthes. He came from the perusal of your writings, and brought charges against them which I was unprepared to answer.”
“Let us hear them, my Son; perhaps, until you shall have perused them yourself, we may assist your difficulty.”
“First, that they deny the existence of the gods.”
“I see but one other assertion that could equal that in folly,” said Epicurus.
“I knew it,” exclaimed Theon, triumphantly; “I knew it was impossible. But where will not prejudice lead men, when even the upright Cleanthes is capable of slander!”
“He is utterly incapable of it,” said the Master ; “and the inaccuracy, in this case, I rather suspect to rest with you than with him. To deny the existence of the gods would indeed be presumption in a philosopher; a presumption equaled only by that of him who should assert their existence.”
“How!” exclaimed the youth, with a countenance in which astonishment seemed to suspend every other expression.
“As I never saw the gods, my son,” calmly continued the Sage, “I cannot assert their existence; and, that I never saw them, is no reason for my denying it.”
“But do we believe nothing except that of which we have ocular demonstration?”
“Nothing, at least, for which we have not the evidence of one or more of our senses; that is, when we believe on just grounds, which, I grant, taking men collectively, is very seldom.”
Continuing on:
So she DOES mention Epicurus, at least once, and approvingly, however short;
But oh my my -- can it really be true that she is going to base her morals on "good" and 'beneficial" without further definiton?
This is not directly related to investigating FW's thought process but it is too good not to include:
Well i did not expect THIS --- almost a precursor or shade of Ayn Rand in discussing self-interest, but stated in a much better way (Not sure if this comment is an aside or not, but i do personally think that this is the correct way to interpret Epicurus.)
Then she continues on to discuss what is essentially a feeling-based "moral sense" - very similar to Jefferson's formulation which i'll quote here from the Peter Carr letter:
:
He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong, merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his Nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality, and not the [beautiful], truth, &c., as fanciful writers have imagined. The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted, indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call common sense. State a moral case to a plowman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, & often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules."
Don't sleep too long, Godfrey! I have high hopes that you are the one who is going to unwind all of this for us!
