Posts by Cassius

I think Elayne has the correct point here.

Quote from Hiram

Mutual benefit is not "hopelessly vague". In fact, it made it to the last ten Principal Doctrines

I do not see "mutual benefit" as written into the last ten principal doctrines. The last ten essentially state that there is no such thing as absolute justice, which is Elayne's point. Now if the parties involved in a relationship agree to certain terms (not to harm or be harmed) then that is what we call "justice," but if the two parties end their agreement, for whatever reason, then there is no more justice. That's really all the last ten are saying, they are NOT saying that a particular set of facts constituting justice "is always good" or "injustice is always bad" any more than any other set of facts are laid out to be good or bad in the context of any other virtue.

The entire point of the virtue analysis is that there IS NO absolute virtue.

But Hiram you take from that starting point that you should endorse particular policy prescriptions that apply to everyone as something that would be endorsed in the name of Epicurus???

I do not follow that analysis at all!

Quote from Oscar

one of Zeno's paradoxes. This suggests that there are, supposedly, an infinite amount of steps to complete any distance, that it's hopelessly impossible because it can neither begin nor end. From this, the argument concludes that motion is an illusion.

Yes exactly thank you Oscar! Do you also have a short explanation of the problem with Zeno's argument ( other than walking across the room, which I gather is the standard and good! response?

I bet you are correct Elayne at least in large part. There is also probably something going on here too that illustrates the limits of logic when not connected to observation. That might be the same thing, or might not.

It's apparently possible to construct a logic argument that motion is impossible. In contrast, we see and feel motion all the time. In such cases "logic" must give way to the senses.

Very good point as to the need for an evolution subforum. Will set up now.

Edit: Done, and I moved this thread to that location.

JLR -- you have not committed a faux pas by posting on my timeline, but the timeline feature of the forum is not particularly well integrated into the main forum part, and may not show up using the search function.

It is generally best to post in the "General Discussion" forum, unless you are aware of a specific subforum that is directly on point. But posting in the General Discussion forum is always safe because I can easily move threads to a more appropriate place if needed.

The "timeline" feature is generally best used for posting things about yourself that don't really fit into another subject.

I should have said more about this, but I think I missed the point because my first reaction to Oscar's comment was that it was funny. More that being funny, observing that application may be "disorganized" is EXACTLY what I think. I think it's the nature of the universe that living things experience pleasure in ways that are both (1) broadly similar among species and (2) widely variable within those limits for individuals of the same species. And that means that there are going to be very many individual "takes" on how to apply Epicurean philosophy. I would like to think that we can bring a certain degree of organization to it, and that it definitely not be "chaotic" (at least under some definitions of that word) but there is no way everyone is going to see things the same way on everything.

And I see this as one of the major differences in perspective that is behind these discussions. I find myself regularly making the point that we should not expect everyone to come to the same conclusions about how pursue pleasure. I think part of the reason I find myself doing that because I get the impression from posts at Society of Epicurus seem to imply that everyone should pursue things in at least broadly similar ways (such as the "golden rule" comments).

I doubt I need to elaborate much further again because I have make the same point earlier in this thread, but that's why I don't want people to get too disconcerted over the disagreements they are reading in this thread. By trying to enforce rules against "politics" we can try to keep focused on higher-level issues that allow the widest possible big tent. But at the same time, real people have real feelings and specific interests that they want to talk about. The rub is that the more specific they get about controversial issues (as does Catherine Wilson or other "humanist" writing) then the more we're going to have disputes need to form separate initiatives.

That's natural and to be expected, just as Oscar implies, and need not be a source of personal animosity.

Oscar I may eventually move this thread to Physics or epistemology, but I bet it would be helpful for someone coming across this to have a quick and dirty explanation for what "magical thinking" means. Is the context of this discussion whether a "supernatural" exists, or is this more of a mathematical / logical theory discussion?

Quote from Oscar

to be as disorganized and chaotic as the universe it describes

We have certainly been successful in achieving that so far!

Yes agreed that is part of the issue. If the word "atom" essentially means indivisible then you have an immediate definitional issue as to whether such a concept can exist. I am not well versed at all on these "ontological" issues -- such as does the fact that we can imagine a god (or an atom) itself mean that it '"exists."

I have to admit that I personally detest what I see as "word games" like I consider this to be. On the other hand, there is little doubt but that this kind of game-playing was rampant in ancient Greece (as it is today) and that Epicurus thought (and I think properly) that it is necessary to deal with it. If you are going to inoculate your school against infection by logic gamesmanship then you need a plan for response.

This thread really isn't off the ground yet and we're basically still brainstorming. We ought to identify and isolate the major threads of the argument and address them separately - once we have a handle on what they are.

Presumably the "plenum" argument is related to this as well, but I don't believe that the two issues are exactly the same, so that's an example of what needs to be split into pieces for analysis.

Godfrey: That is GREAT if you have time to tackle God and the Atom. I recall Alex saying many good things about Stenger and that book in particular. I think I scanned a few pages but that is as far as I got. It would be tremendously helpful if you are able to expand this or related threads with commentary from Stenger.

As far as the clips above those are from the Cambridge books so I don't think there is a full free copy on line.

I know I have read about this in various sources but unfortunately I don't seem to have kept good notes. That was one of the reasons for setting up this forum

Here's a clip from page 12 of DeWitt's book:

The whole issue of "infinity" is charged with implication, both down (infinite divisibility) and "up" (is it right to say that the universe is "infinite" in size, or is "boundless" perhaps a better word?) Because ultimately there must be no mystery to whether something exists or not.....

And of course those issues lead to the closing of the letter to Pythocles:

All these things, Pythocles, you must bear in mind; for thus you will escape in most things from superstition and will be enabled to understand what is akin to them. And most of all give yourself up to the study of the beginnings and of infinity and of the things akin to them, and also of the criteria of truth and of the feelings, and of the purpose for which we reason out these things. For these points when they are thoroughly studied will most easily enable you to understand the causes of the details. But those who have not thoroughly taken these things to heart could not rightly study them in themselves, nor have they made their own the reason for observing them.

Here is where the issue of "movement" comes in, from the same source. We need more development of Epicurus' response to this. I am not going to have time to pursue this right now, but there had to have been important reasons for this dispute and we can't analyse the issue without uncovering them:

From the Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism, Epicurus was responding to Aristitotle's attacks on Atomism:

Quote from elli

That is why the poet thinks it may be better that he cannot find the windows – which are the causes that has to search and deepening in them – because, as he says, he may then be confronted with issues that he would rather not to know or has not to realize. Perhaps, the poet says : to find windows, to be finally a new state of the feeling of pain, and the truth that he wants so much to find, to be the cause of a crucial battle with himself, and this may, instead of rescuing him, it will bring him a greater agitation.

I think this gets very close to an ultimate issue that divides people who interpret Epicurus differently. I can certainly understand that there are times and circumstances where the pain of life is just so overwhelming that it seems like nothing is worth doing other than escaping agitation. But as bad as I feel for such people, I don't think that such a worldview is necessary for everyone in every circumstance, and I think Epicurus was part of the segment of humanity who sees life in Jefferson's phrase - "the greater part of life is sunshine." We can't measure the sunshine part in terms of length, or in any specific terms at all, other than that we FEEL that part to be why we are alive and how we want to spend our lives.

Those of us who see the world that way bear no ill will against anyone else who wants to focus on the dark side and the escape to what they want to call "tranqulity." But that doesn't seem to be a two way street, because many people who are focused on escaping from pain see those who are not so focused as an affront to themselves, and so they work very hard to invent all sorts of ways to "prove" that pleasure is an impractical guide to life, and that there are things in their minds that are so much more "worthy" than the pleasure of themselves and their friends.

To me it is no coincidence that both Nietzsche and Liantinis saw something important in Epicurus. I don't think either of them developed the connection deeply enough, but both of them express the depth of feeling that is (to me) the end result that is compelled by the Epicurean worldview.

This is a placeholder to start the discussion of indivisibility, by first going back to why it was an issue for Epicurus in the first place. What questions or positions was he addressing?

Here are some starting points, first from David Sedley's "Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom":

OK as to the points raised in the other posts by Elayne and Elli in the last 24 hours: there is a lot of background context to this discussion which may not be appropriate to explain further for this thread. On the other hand it "may" be appropriate, too, depending on whether one of the participants or someone reading it wants to discuss and learn from the details for more than just an unproductive desire to air unpleasantness. I can address any details as appropriate.

For now I think the basic point I want to make is that my reading of the history is consistent with Elli's and Elayne's interpretation of it. Elli goes almost as far back with Hiram as do I, so she has watched the situation over the years and knows it clearly. Elayne brings a fresh and quickly insightful perspective to evaluating where we are. It is clear to me that she expresses a justifiable frustration with the situation because as we have advanced in clarity over the years of study, the contradictions that might not have been quite so apparent years ago are now much more visible and easy to see. Elayne sees the contradictions and is working vigorously to deal with them, as we all should, regardless of pre-existing relationships.

Those of us who are committed to promoting Epicurus as he was understood "classically," as a mortal enemy of Stoic emotionlessness and Platonic idealism, are in a distinct minority. It is necessary for us to stick together cooperatively wherever and whenever possible. And that means that watering down the philosophy for the sake of appealing to its enemies, which we do when we compromise with the many variants of humanism, is a very negative thing that needs to be called out as such.

What rumbles beneath the surface here is a continuing struggle against humanism / idealism / stoicism that isn't going to go away, and isn't going to be fixed by finding some kind of middle ground or papering over the canyon between the opposing perspectives.

Quote from Elayne

I am uncertain about Philodemus' accuracy in representing Epicurus.

I am going to comment on several of the above posts but this comment I want to highlight. I agree that skepticism toward Philodemus is warranted for a number of reasons, but there is one reason that I want to highlight, and that is: Many of his works are in such a bad condition that much of what we are reading as the work of "Philodemus" is often little more than informed speculation based on reconstruction of words and passages so much out of contact that it is hardly possible sometimes to tell whether Philodemus is talking about Epicurean positions or "enemy" positions.

(And that's especially a problem because it's normal in a philosophical writing to quote the position you are attacking before you attack it. What if the part that survives is the quote from the position being attacked?)

And that fragmentary and out-of-context state means that scholars -- in many cases very contemporary scholars who have drunk deep from the Stoic-friendly interpretations of Philodemus - are making speculative reconstructions of what they *expect* Philodemus to have been saying, when what they "expect" is not what an ancient Epicurean would really have written.

I think some very valuable information can be gleaned from what we have on Philodemus, but it has to be done very carefully, and I agree with Elayne that I do not trust anything that we have from Philodemus that would carry any implication that cannot also be supported from Lucretius, Diogenes of Oinoanda, or other more faithful and less fragmentary sources.

Quote from Godfrey

I don't want to become a nuclear physicist but I think it's a fertile topic for study and discussion.

As you say Godfrey this needs a thread of its own. As I understand the point, I too think that Epicurus would say that you don't want or need to become a nuclear physicist. The issue revolves more around what I understand to have been the logic games that the philosophers had been playing with infinite divisibility, relating too to the issue of questions like how it would be impossible to walk across a room because the distance could be looked as as always decreasing by half (poor summary but as you say - needs a different thread). I think this was an area that derives more from "it must be the case" deduction, just like the swerve of the atom. The very act of discussing it is what Epicurus advised too, because knowing that there are reasonable theories which explain things without the existence of supernatural gods goes a long way toward toward the peace of mind of all of us who are not, and never will be, nuclear physicists. And that's not to mention the peace of mind needed by the nuclear physicists themselves, who themselves do not know, and will never know "ultimate" answers.

Godfrey have you read any Victor Stenger? I know that Alex says that his physics books are very good and at least largely compatible with Epicurus, but I have not found the time to read them myself so I cannot verify that personally.

Quote from Hiram

that you just use my words to build a bigger wall between us, so it feel so pointless and I don’t feel like you will profit from anything I say anymore,

Hiram:

Building a wall between us is not my intent at all, and it is definitely not true that I do not profit from what you say.

As I see it, you have always had more of an emphasis on "building bridges to other traditions" while my emphasis has always been more on getting a more clear understanding of what Epicurus himself said without regard to bridges to other traditions.

I have been thinking about these issues in relationship to the sometimes competing goals of "truth" vs. "happiness." I think it is tempting for some people to start with "happiness" as their goal, and to think that it is not necessary to be concerned about whether the path to happiness aligns with "truth" or not. And then we have to overlay that with one of the issues we have discussed here, which is the issue of "objective" vs. "subjective" truth.

I cannot speak for other traditions, but I identify with Greco-Western traditions, and within that there is I think a dedication to the premise that while the "truth" may not always be happy, the best way to happiness is always going to be found by starting looking for the truth. That's why I think Epicurean philosophy starts with physics and epistemology (as did Lucretius) rather than by ethical conclusions. If it were "true" that the universe had been created by a supernatural god, then we would move heaven and earth to try to find out and conform ourselves to that divine will. And that is why Epicurus was considered a "dogmatist" -- even though we perceive the universe subjectively through our senses, we analyse the situation and have confidence that some observations (absence of a supernatural god creating the universe) are so well confirmed by the evidence that we can be "dogmatic" that we are correct on such issue.

It is only because we first start out by concluding that there ARE no supernatural gods that we conclude that feeling is the only proper goal. Now if that builds a wall between an Epicurean and all religious-based non-Epicureans, then so be it, as far as I am concerned. And to the best I can tell, that was Epicurus' attitude as well. It would be nice to expand our circle of Epicurean friends as far as possible, but not at the expense of the basic truth that the best path to happiness (a life guided by pleasure) comes by rejecting all pretence to the supernatural.

So while it is very tempting for me to stretch my understanding of the texts in an attempt to agree with you when I sense that we disagree, I think it is not a good choice to disguise the disagreement.

And that is where I think it is clear that I do profit from these exchanges with you.

As I see it, you frequently occupy an untenable middle ground between Epicurean philosophy and humanism, and I think that you sense that, but have simply decided to weigh in with humanism due to your personal preferences. I certainly have personal preferences myself, and at appropriate times and places I express them, but the reason we came together in the first place and collaborate has been the promotion of Epicurean philosophy in general, not particular applications of it with which you or I might personally disagree.

I hope for the future that we can have these discussions a thousand times over, with thousands of new people, because I think the issues we are confronting are crucial. And they are likely inevitable for many years to come. Everyone is going to have to decide whether the "truth" (which is that nature does not endorse their personal sense of pleasure) is more important than first acknowledging that it is the feeling of pleasure (which is not experienced in the same way for everyone) that is the guide, not any personal application of a specific pleasure that is the same for everyone. It is easy to have an organization dedicated to the pleasure of fishing, and within that group there can be all types of fishing which virtually everyone in the group can appreciate. But Epicurean philosophy teaches "the feeling of pleasure" as a replacement for false ideas of supernatural gods and universal ideals, rather than "pleasure as experienced by Americans" or "pleasure as experienced by Russians" or "pleasure as experienced by Saudi Arabians." And on and on -- the point is easy to see, but not to accept within the framework of supernatural religion or of idealistic one-size-fits-all theories like "humanism."

I think I see this same tension in the work of Catherine Wilson, whose recent books in many ways hark back more to the DeWitt model than to the Okeefe "absence of pain" nonsense. Wilson seems to throw her weight behind a common sense interpretation of pleasure, and she is willing to state fairly clearly that she is an Epicurean, and not a Stoic, despite what is no doubt a lot of peer pressure to "just get along" with everyone.

And yet she laces her Epicurean writings with her own personal political preferences that contradict the core issue that we are talking about -- that EVERYONE has personal political preferences because everyone is an individual with a different experience of what is pleasing to them -- and Wilson undercuts her credibility and effectiveness by not acknowledging that.

Epicurean philosophy is not "humanism" and in many ways it is the *opposite* of humanism, which is just as "universalistic" and "absolutist" in nature as is Christianity, Judaism, or any variation of Abrahamic religion.

These are the issues that I see dividing us, but I don't take them personally and I hope that you will not either. We may well take them in different directions, which as I keep saying I think is inevitable since specific experience of pleasure is not the same for everyone. But let me be clear that when I say that I am not inviting a "split" -- what I am hoping for over time is that we will have communities of Epicureans worldwide who will acknowledge that while they have their own respective views of the happiest way to live, that the basic insights of Epicurus about the nature of the universe, and the pursuit of happiness being justified by nature, gives them truly a shared basis for working out their differences in a much better way than supernatural religion or absolutist humanism would ever allow.

Apparently not much....

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/23549227/frances-wright

Quote from JJElbert

Frances Wright is interred in—of all places!—Cincinnati, OH.

I never thought to look this up and my first thought is "What is on her gravestone?"