Posts by Cassius

Wikipedia - Problem of Universals:

In metaphysics, the problem of universals refers to the question of whether properties exist, and if so, what they are.^[1] Properties are qualities or relations that two or more entities have in common. The various kinds of properties, such as qualities and relations, are referred to as universals. For instance, one can imagine three cup holders on a table that have in common the quality of being circular or exemplifying circularity,^[2] or two daughters that have in common being the female offsprings of Frank. There are many such properties, such as being human, red, male or female, liquid, big or small, taller than, father of, etc.^[3] While philosophers agree that human beings talk and think about properties, they disagree on whether these universals exist in reality or merely in thought, speech and sight.

The problem of universals relates to a number of questions in close relation to not only metaphysics but, to logic and epistemology, all in efforts to understand how the thought of universals has a connection to those of singular properties.^[4]

Quote from Godfrey

In a world of atoms and void, there are no universal concepts

Quote from Martin

If the same thought pattern shows up with only minor variation among the vast majority of members of a population, that should qualify as a universal.

Here-again betraying my own lack of technical training, I want to repeat that I (and I bet I am far from the only one) find this topic very confusing and off-putting due to the common meaning the word "universal" seemingly in conflict with the way philosophers use it. For example from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Quote

Universals are a class of mind-independent entities, usually contrasted with individuals (or so-called "particulars"), postulated to ground and explain relations of qualitative identity and resemblance among individuals. Individuals are said to be similar in virtue of sharing universals. An apple and a ruby are both red, for example, and their common redness results from sharing a universal. If they are both red at the same time, the universal, red, must be in two places at once. This makes universals quite different from individuals; and it makes them controversial.

MIND-INDEPENDENT ENTITIES ..POSTULATED TO GROUND AND EXPLAIN RELATIONS....?

And in the quote it is considered acceptable to compare an apply and a ruby and to say both are red and on the strength of two instances of something similar call that similarity a "universal?"

The reason I quote Godfrey is that that is how I tend to look at the question, although at present I would vary that and say:

"In a universe in which atoms are the only eternally unchanging entities, there is no possibility of there existing eternally unchanging human concepts (which is what is IMPLIED, to a normal person, by the word "universal").

On the other hand I agree that Martin is stating something obvious too:

"If the same thought pattern shows up with only minor variation among the vast majority of members of a population, that should qualify as a universal."

I personally just find it very confusing and potentially very misleading for philosophers to to try equate "same thought pattern"... among "members of a population" and call that a "universal" (which again to me implies that it is presumed to be found in ALL members of that population anywhere in the "universe" (meaning "cosmos").

I just wanted to restate this because I find it maddening that philosophers want to insist on using that term "universal." I find it impossible to shake the idea from my mind that this is intentional deception on the part of people (Plato et al) who want to postulate and convince untrained people of something that does not really exist. Of course I have no idea who originated the term "universal" and presume it is more modern in origin.

That looks fine to me!

Wow that is GREAT work Godfrey! Thank you!!! I am rusty on all this and haven't had time to read the book myself but this confirms for me that I must find the time to do that.

Quote from Elayne

several parents will say "we want to use something natural." Well, you know, arsenic is natural.

I had to quote so I could say "LOL" -- excellent illustration, and I do agree with Elayne's point that people today infer from the word "natural" some very strange things -- and that is the problem with referring to "natural measure of wealth" without explanation. In due respect and deference to Metrodorus and Philodemus, I think it highly likely that if we had more complete texts to show the full context, I would expect that they either (1) placed to term in clear context, or (2) were clearly speaking to Epicureans who were expected to know the context, or probably (3) both one and two.

Quote from Godfrey

To follow up on Elayne's post, what is "natural" for a wealthy Roman is far different than what is "natural" for a bushman.

Yes -- this is an obvious point but one with overriding implications. There IS no "natural measure of wealth" other than that which is arrived at by applying the calculus of pleasure and pain to a particular context. We can call THAT the "natural measure" if we like, and if Metrodorus used the term then I feel sure that is what he meant. But to imply that there is a fixed amount that would apply to all turns Epicurean philosophy on its head.

The problem I see here is not that Elayne does not have proper respect for Metrodorus, but that you (Hiram) are submitting fragmentary / speculative texts in support of people like Metrodorus saying things that appear to be in contradiction to the core Epicurean texts which are themselves clear.

Here, in this situation, we know from many many text references that there is NO "bright line test" on application of any tool because the end result is "does it bring pleasure?" and that given the nature of the universe there CAN BE no "one size fits all" answer.

That's really the problem I have been trying to express here. Elayne (and anyone who builds from the ground up) is going to start with that premise, and they are not going to be tempted to look for a bright line test in anything, especially something as specific and contextual as "wealth."

Discussing a "natural measure" of anything is always, in Epicurean terms, going to be contextual, but by implying otherwise (which you are doing in your writing about this subject, and which the article we are discussing otherwise, you are falsely suggesting that Metrodorus would have taken a position different from Epicrurus -- and I say falsely because the texts you are citing are fragmentary and speculatively reconstructed, and they could easily be read in a way that is totally harmonizable with Epicurus himself.

This issue is very similar to the attempt to construe Lucretius in a way that differs from Epicurus, which I also gather from some of your past writings Hiram is an interest of yours,

The pattern that I am seeing here is that you are looking for deviations among the Epicurean leaders, probably so as to support the contention that Epicurean philosophy needed to evolve in the past - and still needs to evolve - to meet needs which you personally feel need to be addressed, but either were not addressed, or more accurately, were addressed in ways that you disagree with personally.

I would not be so blunt about this but for your stating that this is a continuing editorial problem for the leadership of this forum. I do not see it that way at all, and I think the problem is much more in your determination to "improve" Epicurean philosophy in a way that is not supported by the core reliable texts.

That would certainly be a great idea, A_Gardner. You certainly have permission to use any of the memes/graphics that are posted in the gallery here. That's what they are there for - to be circulated publicly.

Instagram is not something I use (don't even think I have an account) but if you do then it would be great if you could set up something.

Pending further detail from clear texts of Metrodorus and/or Philodemus that says otherwise, my position is that what Elayne is stating IS the "natural measure of weath" and her reaction to the term is more evidence that people think that it implies an absolute.

If that term is really present in a well-preserved text (and it sounds like it does) then I am sure I am going to expect that it's meaning is what we are saying -- that there IS no "absolute" rule for measuring wealth that is different from measuring anything else -- the rules is going to be "choose the measure that maximizes pleasure" whatever that may e under the circumstances.

Sometimes you are going to tune your wealth lower, sometimes you are going to tune your wealth higher, but always with the result (the "natural measure") being that amount which maximizes pleasure.

But that's just the same as with wine, food, sex, friends, etc-- no difference in principle.

Quote from Hiram

I think you should challenge yourself, though, on your unwillingness to address Epicurean doctrines

Ok I don't understand you here at all. I AM addressing Epicurean doctrine, and taking the position that "natural measure of wealth" is no different that natural measure of courage or friendship or anything else.

Quote from Hiram

The matter of economics and against limitless desires (which = anti-consumerism and related anxieties and false opinions) is a huge point where Epicurean teachings give moral guidance that is urgently needed in the modern world, as the Uruguayan ex-president has said before.

I think your citing this is further evidence of my concern. "Anticonsumerism" with which of course I agree is in no way near the most important issues involved in Epicurean philosophy, and what I am trying to say in a diplomatic way to you is that I disagree with efforts to reinforce that impression, which I believe will be a result of choosing to focus on this issue as if it is different from the general rule.

I think that's what you are interpreting as my "unwillingness." I am not unwilling to deal with and explore any Epicurean doctrines, but I do my best to nudge people away from paths which seem to me to be less productive.

Quote from Hiram

There is no reason whatsoever to confuse "absolute" for "natural", just as we don't confuse the terms when we speak of natural desires (we don't say "absolute desires")

For example, I agree with you that there is no reason whatsoever to confuse
"natural measure of wealth" with "austerity" or "minimalism." Where I disagree with you is that it seems to me that 98% of the internet commentary DOES make that mistake, and unless you first and foremost highlight that that is NOT where you are going, then the more times "natural measure of wealth" gets discussed WITHOUT that clarification, then it just digs a deeper and deeper hole.

Whenever we can it is good for us to promote the work for forum participants in spreading the word about Epicurus. I have neglected to link to Mike's blog, but I see he has a new post, and we ought to keep track of and comment on his posts as part of this forum too.

Here's his latest: https://epicureanmindset.blogspot.com/2020/02/here-i…get-rid-of.html

Quote from Hiram

Is /ought is a fetish among logicians

I completely agree. It is such a fetish that we probably need to develop a clear statement explaining the issue and pointing the way to an Epicurean position, just as on this "problem of universals."

I think I am agreeing with you Hiram, but I still sense danger in "wealth is preferable to poverty" and "this natural measure of wealth is not arbitrary." I agree that those statements can generally and easily be interpreted in a way that makes clear that the goal is pleasure and that all tools are subjective and relative to context.

However lots of people will make the leap on those to hearing "wealth is ALWAYS or INTRINSICALLY preferable to poverty" and "this natural measure of wealth is not arbitrary BUT ABSOLUTE" and I think we have to constantly be on guard against that. This is related to the entire issue of the natural and necessary categorization, which I also think is easily misunderstood to imply that there are bright lines such as a Platonist or Aristotelian or Stoic would assert (which they would assert derives from gods or from virtue).

In fact that's the danger I see in the phrase "natural measure of wealth" is that it will be misunderstood almost as much as would be the word "god" and so demands almost immediate definition in Epicurean terms.

And THAT's the issue I have with the article we're discussing -- it buries the conclusion under reams of details that most people won't read, and then when it gets to the end it doesn't even make the point clearly then.

I agree that it helps a lot to discuss these issues and strategies for presenting them because I think that there IS a hugely important issue here, which is that Epicurus doesn't advise poverty any more than he advises aiming for great riches. But that's what 98% of the people talking about Epicurus seem to think or advocate, so if you take up this issue and make the fundamental point then I really applaud the effort.

Quote from Martin

"To say that the objects of conceptual thought are always universals is not to assert that these universals exist as such in reality, independent of the human mind that apprehends them."

I agree with Martin and in the first draft of my post above I quoted that line myself as something I thought sounded good. But then when I read further I got less comfortable and didn't requote any of it.

Clearly conceptual thought about things that do not exist is not only possible but ordinary and useful. However if our subject is "universals" then I am not sure that observation really advances the discussion, and we really need to start back earlier to define what we are talking about with that word "universals."

Welcome to Episode Six of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who lived in the age of Julius Caesar and wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

I am your host Cassius, and together with my panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you line by line through the six books of Lucretius' poem, and discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. Be aware that none of us are professional philosophers, and everyone here is a a self-taught Epicurean. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book, "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.

Before we start with today's episode let me remind you of our three ground rules.

First: Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it, not to put our own positions into Lucretius' or Epicurus' words.

Second: In this podcast we won't be talking about modern political issues. Over at the Epicureanfriends.com web forum, we call this approach "Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean." Epicurean philosophy is not a religion, it''s not Stoicism, Humanism, Libertarianism, Atheism, or Marxism - it is a unique philosophy of its own, to be understood on its own terms, not in terms of conventional modern morality.

Third: Lucretius will show that Epicurus was not focused on over-the-top luxury, like some people say, but neither did he teach a minimalist lifestyle, as other people say. Epicurus taught that feeling - pleasure and pain - are the guides that Nature gave us to live by, not gods, idealism, or virtue ethics. More than anything else, Epicurus taught that the universe is not supernatural in any way, and that means there's no life after death, and any happiness we'll ever have comes in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.

Remember that our home page is LucretiusToday.com, and there you can find a free copy of the version of the poem from which we are reading, and links to where you can discuss the poem between episodes at Epicureanfriends.com.

In the episodes so far here are the major topics we have covered:

• That Pleasure, using the allegory of Venus, is the driving force of all life;
• That the way to rid ourselves of pain is to replace pain with pleasure, using the allegory of Venus entertaining Mars, the god of war;
• That Epicurus was the great philosophic leader who stood up to supernatural religion, opened the gates to a proper understanding of nature, , and thereby showed us how we too can emulate the life of gods;
• That it is not Epicurean philosophy, but supernatural religion, which is truly unholy and prompts men to commit evil deeds;
• That false priests and philosophers will try to scare you away from Epicurean philosophy with threats of punishment after death, which is why you must understand that those threats cannot be true;
• That the key to freeing yourself from false religion and false philosophy is found in the study of nature;
• And that the first observation which underlies all the rest of Epicurean philosophy is that we observe that nothing is ever generated from nothing.

Now that we are up to date let's start today's discussion!

This is the text that will be covered in Episode Six. The Latin version of Book One has this as beginning at approximately line 137 which can be found in the Munro Latin Edition here.

1743 Daniel Browne Edition (click link for English and Latin):

I know it is hard to explain in Latin verse the dark and mystic notions of the Greeks, for I have things to say that require new words, because the tongue is poor, the subject new. But your virtue, and the pleasures I expect from tender friendship, make me bear the toil, and spend the silent night with wakeful eyes, studious of words and numbers I shall use, to open to your mind such scenes of light which shew the hidden qualities of things unknown.

These terrors of the mind, this darkness then, not the Sun’s beams, nor the bright rays of day, can ever dispel, but Nature’s light and reason, whose first of principles shall be my guide: Nothing was by the Gods of nothing made.

For hence it is that fear disturbs the mind, that strange events in Earth and Heaven are seen, whose causes cannot appear by reason’s eye, and then we say they were from Powers Divine. But when we rest convinced that nothing can arise from nothing, then the way is clear to our pursuit; we distinctly see whence every thing comes into being, and how things are formed, without the help and trouble of the Gods.

If things proceed from nothing, every thing might spring from any thing, and want no seed; Men from the sea might first arise, and fish and birds break from the Earth, and herds and tender flocks drop from the sky, and every kind of beast, fixed to no certain place, might find a being in deserts or in cultivated fields: Nor the same fruit on the same trees would grow, but would be changed, and all things all things bear. For had not every thing its genial seed, how is it that every thing derives its birth from causes still the same? But now, since things are formed from certain seeds, and first rise into light, where every being has its principles and matter fitly framed, from hence we see that all things cannot spring from every thing, since each has certain secret properties peculiar to itself.

Munro: 

Nor does my mind fail to perceive how hard it is to make clear in Latin verses the dark discoveries of the Greeks, especially as many points must be dealt with in new terms on account of the poverty of the language and the novelty of the questions. But yet your worth and the looked-for pleasure of sweet friendship prompt me to undergo any labor and lead me on to watch the clear nights through, seeking by what words and in ,what verse I may be able in the end to shed on your mind so clear a light that you can thoroughly scan hidden things.

This terror then and darkness of mind must be dispelled not by the rays of the sun and glittering shafts of day, but by the aspect and the law of nature; the warp of whose design we shall begin with this first principle, nothing is ever gotten out of nothing by divine power. Fear in sooth holds so in check all mortals, because they see many operations go on in earth and heaven, the causes of which they can in noway understand, believing them therefore to be done by power divine. For these reasons when we shall have seen that nothing can be produced from nothing, we shall then more correctly ascertain that which we are seeking, both the elements out of which everything can be produced and the manner in which all things are done without the hand of the gods.

If things came from nothing, any kind might be born of any thing, nothing would require seed. Men for instance might rise out of the sea, the scaly race out of the earth, and birds might burst out of the sky; horned and other herds, every kind of wild beasts would haunt with changing broad tilth and wilderness alike. Nor would the same fruits keep constant to trees, but would change; any tree might bear any fruit. For if there were not begetting bodies for each, how could things have a fixed unvarying mother? But in fact because things are all produced from fixed seeds, each thing is born and goes forth into the borders of light out of that in which resides its matter and first bodies; and for this reason all things cannot be gotten out of all things, because in particular things resides a distinct power.

Bailey:

Nor does it pass unnoticed of my mind that it is a hard task in Latin verses to set clearly in the light the dark discoveries of the Greeks, above all when many things must be treated in new words, because of the poverty of our tongue and the newness of the themes; yet your merit and the pleasure of your sweet friendship, for which I hope, urge me to bear the burden of any toil, and lead me on to watch through the calm nights, searching by what words, yea and in what measures, I may avail to spread before your mind a bright light, whereby you may see to the heart of hidden things.

This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature; whose first rule shall take its start for us from this, that nothing is ever begotten of nothing by divine will.Fear forsooth so constrains all mortal men, because they behold many things come to pass on earth and in the sky, the cause of whose working they can by no means see, and think that a divine power brings them about. Therefore, when we have seen that nothing can be created out of nothing, then more rightly after that shall we discern that for which we search, both whence each thing can be created, and in what way all things come to be without the aid of gods.

For if things came to being from nothing, every kind might be born from all things, nought would need a seed. First men might arise from the sea, and from the land the race of scaly creatures, and birds burst forth from the sky; cattle and other herds, and all the tribe of wild beasts, with no fixed law of birth, would haunt tilth and desert. Nor would the same fruits stay constant to the trees, but all would change: all trees might avail to bear all fruits. Why, were there not bodies to bring each thing to birth, how could things have a fixed unchanging mother? But as it is, since all things are produced from fixed seeds, each thing is born and comes forth into the coasts of light, out of that which has in it the substance and first-bodies of each; and ’tis for this cause that all things cannot be begotten of all, because in fixed things there dwells a power set apart.

I think I have one more thing to say for now about this very murky subject. I have long believed and still maintain that Bailey's version of anticipations = "conceptual reasoning" which occurs after you see five cows, form a word-picture in your mind of a cow, and use the word cow -- My view is that that process is by no means a complete description of what pre-conceptions means. That process DOES exist, and it is VERY IMPORTANT, but that is "conceptual reasoning."

PRE-conceptions, on the other hand, would (following DeWitt) be something "intuitive" that serves as an input or a disposition toward conceptual reasoning, and does not constitute conceptual reasoning itself.

I repeat this just because I think there are TWO very important things to discuss here, which are closely related but not identical: (1) conceptual reasoning, and all that goes with that, and (2) preconceptions, which is a "faculty" equivalent to seeing or hearing or feeling. I think if we jam both of these two together as if we are talking about the same thing then we lose sight of what Epicurus was talking about as PRE-conceptions.

Lee:

I am vigorously hoping that someone is going to drop in and enlighten us and in a few sentences answers all our questions.

Failing that, however, I think you are going to find probably the best material answering your question in that DeLacey commentary, for example. All of this is very technical and as usual we are relying on commentators, some of whom are more sympathetic to Epicurus than others. I can't vouch for DeLacey but I remember thinking when I finished reading this work several years ago that DeLacey's interpretations seemed sound to me. This following clip is part of the material I linked in the last post above:

Excellent question and very deep subject Lee. I will be interested to see what others have to say.

It would probably help a lot to attempt to come up with a more clear statement of what the "problem of universals" really means, because I agree that you are right to see all this as of critical importance.

Plato suggested that some form of universals exist in his realm of ideas; Aristotle suggested that some form of universals exist in his "essences" - I am not sure we have really established what exactly Epicurus held on the subject other than inferentially from the observation that nothing has eternal unchanging existence except the elemental particles. I think that has very clear implications for certain definitions of "universals," but the full impact of the foundation depends entirely on the definition given to that term.

I would think that we could find some academic articles on the subject too, so we can look for that over time.

In the meantime, the place that I am familiar with that has the most bearing on this and where Epicurus comes in is the section beginning at the link below from DeLacey's analysis of Plato, Aristotle and Epicurus, in Philodemus' "On Methods of Inference" -

https://archive.org/stream/philode…ge/120/mode/2up

Ok this is the final paragraph, which seems to me to summarize that nothing new is being added: the ultimate point is that wealth is to be judged just like any other choice, by the amount of pleasure and pain that it brings:

I don't have anything really negative to say about the article, and all the detail is certainly interesting from many points of view. But what I do have a problem with is essentially the same as the Epicurean criticism of Socrates: Don't hide the ball. Make your point and explain at the outset where you are going and the ultimate point so that the reader can process the information efficiently. There is nothing strange about the "Epicurean measure of wealth" any more than that there is an "Epicurean measure of ice cream." To me, it is distracting and disconcerting to go on and on with details about translations and what other people argued without being clear what the ultimate point is.

And in fact in this closing point, the writer is actually DISMISSING the ultimate point as if there is some reason not to keep that front and center.

OK with all that being said there is a lot of good material here for discussion as an example of the Epicurean calculus of action, but NOT toward the direction of poverty that the writer seemed to want to plant in the reader's mind as Epicurus' viewpoint!