Posts by Cassius

OK here's my view on the issue, and it turns on this passage from what you wrote: "acceptable positions for Epicureans to hold."

No one really gets to say what an Epicurean is, because Epicurus is dead, and there was no official transmission of authority from him to today. All we can do is say what we think and choose our own personal associations.

Hiram has set up his Society of Epicurus as a specific group. Until recently he has never had a specific list of statements as to what viewpoints the group should promote. It's his group and it's entirely appropriate for him to list whatever viewpoints he wants to pursue, so our discussion here should in no way be interpreted as trying to fight with Hiram or limit his freedom of action. He can adopt whatever views he likes, and people can decide whether they wish to participate based on their own personal preferences.

The same goes for here at Epicureanfriends.com. We're not a membership organization in the same sense as a "Society," but in launching the website those of us who are moderators need to make decisions as to what limits should be imposed on the discussions. The "Not Neo" list is exactly that - it's an attempt to define what views we want to see promoted here, and what views we're not comfortable with and prefer to see promoted elsewhere.

Hiram seeks to cast a wider tent, this group is erecting a narrower tent, one that is focused more on viewpoints that the moderators here believe to be more accurate to Epicurus. In many cases (not all) that regularly means that the views here are those that derive from Norman DeWitt's viewpoint, while Hiram's tent is more oriented toward the academic mainstream.

As far as I am concerned there's no personal hard feelings between the two camps, and everyone can choose what they wish and have my best wishes. But here at Epicureanfriends I / we are going to draw a line at some point so that our position is not numerically overwhelmed as it is in Academia, and so the people who believe that they can profit from this approach can associate with each other in productive peace.

So the Society of Epicurus can decide that there are three acceptable positions on gods, or 30, but that has no bearing on what those of us who are moderators at Epicureanfriends.com will decide is appropriate for promotion here. Discussion is one thing; promotion is something else, and Hiram is taking the Society of Epicurus in the direction of promoting certain viewpoints that are not consistent with the DeWitt model of Epicurus, which is the model that's going to be the guiding force behind this website, as explained in the terms of use and other postings about the purpose of the website.

No hard feelings are involved in any of these decisions; everyone has to decide what views they are comfortable in promoting. In the end, neither the School of Epicurus, this website, or the Society of Epicurus (as far as I can tell) is a democracy, nor should we wish to be. The Epicurean goal is Pleasure / Happiness, not any variation of politics such as democracy, and so I don't think we at Epicureanfriends.com should be in the business of deciding what views are acceptable for "an Epicurean" to hold. We're only in the business of deciding what is acceptable for this website to promote.

Just catching up - first comment

Quote from Hiram

Cassius at this point I’m not sure if it’s honest of you to characterize this as what I’m saying.

There's miscommunication going on here -- I can see why you thought I was including you personally in saying those things, but I am not characterizing you personally as taking that position. I understand that you're trying to be flexible on what you want in the society of Epicurus, and you are most likely opening the tent wider than I would do personally, but I do not think I have seen you make remarks accusing Epicurus of lying. There are people who are very vocal in saying that, but I don't consider you to be one of them.

I see that Oscar and I cross-posted on exactly the same point. Thanks Oscar.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

I know that Epicurus puts friendship as chief pleasure,

I know I sound like a nitpicker today and I apologize, but since we're discussing for the purpose of sharpening our understanding I ought to comment on this too. Probably better put that would be "I know that Epicurus puts friendship as a chief tool for achieving pleasure."

PD27. Of all the things which wisdom acquires to produce the blessedness of the complete life, far the greatest is the possession of friendship.

I only point that out because it is a subject of regular discussion as to whether it is possible to rank some pleasures as more important than others. I think that Epicurus would say that it is not possible to do so as a general rule, so I doubt it is proper to speak of a "chief pleasure" -- at least not in general, apart from a particular context.

I also say that because I frequently see comments that imply exactly that -- that friendship is somehow a special pleasure higher than any other, and I think it's important to allow "friendship" to assume a absolute conceptual superiority that is not justified by the rest of the philosophy. If anything other than pleasure itself is allowed to creep toward the status of "chief good" or "highest good" other than the feeling of pleasure itself, I think that's an invitation to confusion and an open door to the virtue-ethicists.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

This is highly probable since the god here is at a complete state of happiness, a reasonable model for Epicureans to live as invisibly as possible the way the God lives invisibly.

I didn't notice this earlier so I have underlined the part I want to comment on: In my personal research and opinion I think the phrase "live unknown" is vastly overblown as indicative of what Epicurus taught. Check the cite and I think you will find that the phrase apparently comes from a Herculaneum scroll with absolutely zero surrounding context to explain how it was being used in that writing.

I know that there are other texts which can be read to indicate that Epicurus advised against careers in public fields where you are constantly at the mercy of the whims of other people, and of course the anti-Epicureans were always accusing Epicurus of not supporting public affairs as he should. But Epicurus certainly did not "live unknown" himself, nor did all of the many other Epicureans we know about, such as Lucretius, or Atticus, or many many others. If you check the opening of Lucretius you see that he is saying that his intended student, Memmius, would / could not in any way desert his public duties at the time of the Roman civil war. And obviously Cassius Longinus saw no conflict between his Epicurean views and being a leader and a general in that war. It's the nature of Epicurean philosophy to talk to other people and teach them and surround ourselves with our friends, and in no way in my view does that translate into a goal of living as invisibly as possible.

I know that "live unknown" is one of the most popular phrases to attach to Epicurus today, but I think the meaning attached to it today is far beyond what Epicurus really meant, and certainly it is not reflective of how he himself lived. And since I don't think Epicurus was a hypocrite in any way, I think it's pretty much absurd to allege as these websites do that Epicurus was advising us essentially to live as hermits.

So I don't think that the Epicureans gods consider that they live invisibly; they simply have no concern about how they appear to humans. Nor should living invisibly be a general high-value goal of Epicureans, except where context leads it to be of advantage. And if someone is finding that "live unknown" is a high-value tactic in their personal situation, that sounds to me like a strong indication that they need to reevaluate their living conditions to see if they can't find some place more friendly to live, as per PD39: " The man who has best ordered the element of disquiet arising from external circumstances has made those things that he could akin to himself, and the rest at least not alien; but with all to which he could not do even this, he has refrained from mixing, and has expelled from his life all which it was of advantage to treat thus."

My strong suspicion is that many of the commentators who push "live unknown" as Epicurean doctrine are in actuality Stoics / Anti-Epicureans themselves, and they have a personal interest in seeing true Epicureans sit back, shut up, and leave the world of public affairs totally to themselves, so that they can push their own pet "virtue-ethics" projects without opposition.

Quote from Oscar

Good point! I'll have to consider this some more before categorizing Epicurus as one thing rather than another.

It really does seem to me that his perspective on this issue is unique, much like some of his other views are unique. And that's one of many reasons I don't like lumping Epicurus in with other philosophers with labels like "he's one of the hedonists" or "he's one of the atomists."

Those kind of labels totally obscure the depth and sweep of the philosophy, and he really deserves the name "Epicurean" and the effort to look into what that word really means.

And I know there is a cite in Cicero where he complained about Epicurus using words in non-standard ways, so this is not a new issue, and if we are going to be clear we really have to be precise in our definitions.

This is something that is a regular stumbling block in discussing Epicurus, but there's simply no way around dealing with it if we want to really understand what he was saying.

Shall we relate this back to another part of the discussion? I think lots of people, me included, would be willing to strap ourselves on top of what is essentially a bomb waiting to go off, knowing that we quite likely will die rather than return, so we could fly to the moon, or mars, or venus, or outside the solar system looking to see what's there, and maybe meet other life, even if they aren't gods. Exploration is a great pleasure to a certain type of people, and that type of person happily risks life for the pleasure of finding out what is there.

And I think Epicurus would totally approve of that, even though some people will argue that Epicurus was saying that should always choose the longer pleasure over the shorter one.

That was my problem with item 16 of this list as we originally started this thread. I would submit that Epicurus would hold that "Over the long term" is only one consideration, and it is not an overriding consideration, in making choices and avoidances:

16. Choices and avoidances are carried out successfully (that is, producing pleasure as the final product) if we measure advantages/pleasures versus disadvantages/pains over the long term. This means that we may sometimes defer pleasure in order to avoid greater pains, or choose temporary disadvantage, but only and always for the sake of a greater advantage or pleasure later.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

So far, Elayne 's reply makes more sense to me.

You may mean more than what I am about to comment on, but for the moment I am presuming that you mean that it makes sense to you that he is referring to aliens on another planet.

I think that is probably going in the right direction, but also I think it's important to note the detail that is surviving even though so much is lost. The description of the gods as sort of like flowing atoms, and living in the "intermundia" (presumably between worlds rather than on a particular world) indicates a pretty advanced level of speculation as to them having a quasi-physical nature instead of just the standard Martians that people traditionally think about.

And consistent with a recent theme I have been pursing I think it's important not to reduce this too much to being just another speculation like about a plant or an animal living deep under the sea, or just something like that that seems strange to us but of very little relevance to our own lives. I think that Epicurus thought that a proper understanding of gods is very relevant to the lives of most people. (OK I will exclude Elayne from most people - joke!)

Pretty clearly from Velleius in On the Nature of the Gods, we're talking about attributes that are logical deductions (such as what the gods speak), and their perfect bliss seems to be as much of a logical construction too as it is as specific scientific speculation about what they eat or drink or breath or exactly what it is that they are doing that they enjoy so much that they want to spend an endless life doing it.

The point I am making not so well here is that if we reduce the gods to some form of aliens and put them on the shelf along with "those things we expect to see when we pursue space travel" then I do think we will miss important aspects of what Epicurus was talking about. Sort of like infinity and eternality, I think Epicurus was saying that there is much to be gained by regularly exercising the mind on subjects that help us remain attached to our place in the universe and our goals for what to do when alive.

And of course that's probably related directly to this observation, which I probably should have made more of a highlight of my discussion about the Epicurean view of gods. I don't think that Epicurus came up with his theory of the gods because of this observation, but there's no doubt in my mind that this is a reason why he thought the theory was important:

VS32. The veneration of the wise man is a great blessing to those who venerate him.

.... which probably goes along with the observation (I think recorded in Seneca) that the Epicureans used the phrase:

"Do all things as if Epicurus were watching."

For purposes of this discussion I'll consider the christians to be plaigarists who say "What Would Jesus Do?"   But likely the same principle of human psychology is involved. It helps to visualize goals if we want to achieve them. Which to repeat one more time, would not have been sufficient for Epicurus to invent the theory as some kind of "golden myth" if he didn't actually think that it made sense and was consistent with observation.

Oscar: As to whether Epicurus was a deist of course we again need to be sure that everyone agrees with what that means. If a Deist has to be like Thomas Paine and others of the 18th century clockmaker model - where a supernatural god created the universe and then stepped back to participate no further, I think Epicurus likely has to be ruled out from being in that category too, since he was adamant that the universe existed eternally and was never created supernaturally.

Nor would he fit into an "agnostic" category if that means "I don't know." However there is a section in A Few Days In Athens where Frances Wright seems to me to assert that she thought Epicurus fit that category, but she might have been referring his "I don't know" to specific gods like Zeus or Venus. Maybe if you define gods in the Greek model and are referring to his view of specific Greek god personalities, then maybe it would be proper to say that he was "atheist as to Zeus" or "agnostic as to Venus or Hera."

Elayne: I am open to the idea that times have changed and that I am a small minority, but at least in the past I used to think that the interest in life in outer space was widespread because so many people were interested in "space exploration" fiction. This might be a cultural or individual thing that ebbs and flows. It would be interesting (for me anyway) to try to get a grip on how much of a concern or interest "questions of life other than on earth" is to other people (in general, not just to us here, although that would be interesting too) and break down into age, culture, sex, education, etc.

I suspect it's probably not a coincidence that the "earliest known work of science fiction" is Lucian's "A True Story" which wikipedia says is "the earliest known work of fiction to include travel to outer space, alien lifeforms, and interplanetary warfare." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_True_Story

Welcome @xronis! Thanks for joining us! When you get a chance, please tell us about yourself and your background in Epicurean philosophy.

It would be particularly helpful if you could tell us (1) how you found this forum, and (2) how much background reading you have done in Epicurus. As an aid in the latter, we have prepared the following list of core reading.

We look forward to talking with you!

----------------------- Epicurean Works I Have Read ---------------------------------

1 The Biography of Epicurus By Diogenes Laertius (Chapter 10). This includes all Epicurus' letters and the Authorized Doctrines. Supplement with the Vatican list of Sayings.

2 "Epicurus And His Philosophy" - Norman DeWitt

3 "On The Nature of Things"- Lucretius

4 Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

5 Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

6 The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

7 "A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

8 Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus (3) Others?

9 Plato's Philebus

10 Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

11 "The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially on katastematic and kinetic pleasure.

Also Mike, this is why I so strongly urge people to read DeWitt very early on. His Chapter 13 on this topic should answer most all of your questions about this. You may not agree with the answers, and you may still think that such beings don't exist, etc., but you ought to at least hear an explanation of Epicurean gods written from a sympathetic source who makes an effort to explain the subject without ridiculing it, or presuming Epicurus was a liar, a coward, etc -- which is the implication of most of the theories you will read from other writers.

You (Mike) have been reading a lot about Epicurus and apparently you've not yet come across a sympathetic treatment of Epicurus' approach to gods. That is the kind of problem that really makes my blood boil (not at you, of course!). The world is full of commentaries on Epicurus but almost none of them are willing to write a sympathetic recreation of the Epicurean argument. And that's one reason we are talking about this in the context of a list of tenets of a "Society of Epicurus." It would certainly not be acceptable to me to be a member of a society that held that Epicurus was a liar or a coward and simply trying to avoid the fate of Socrates.

Only Norman DeWitt seems to have been willing to treat Epicurus fairly and respectfully, and for his trouble Norman DeWitt is effectively blacklisted by every other commentator. Everyone ought to think very very seriously about the meaning of this ostracism of DeWitt and what it means about what they are reading about Epicurus in other sources.

I was about to come back and post about this and I see Mike raises the issue:

Quote

. And if he is a mortal god, he must have been at least a super human

That's the part that is not correct, if your implication by the word "super" means "supernatural" or "non-natural."

I get the impression that 98% of the issue is that people today insist that there can be only one definition of "god." They absolutely refuse to consider a "god" to be anything less than omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent, and all those "magical" qualities that the eastern religions specialize in. It's amazing -- they can read the Epicurean material about a god being natural and not omnipotent, and when they get to the end of the sentence they just refuse to entertain it -- almost as if they had never read the words in the sentence! All the while it is patently obvious and well-known that Greek gods themselves were in no way omniscient or omnipresent or all-powerful, and yet we seem to have no problem accepting that Venus or Zeus were called "gods." It is today as if no kind of god can exist except a jesus or a mohammed or a yahweh -- how amazingly narrow minded we have become! There's no way in the world that I personally am going to let the christians and the jews and the muslims dictate to me what the word "god" MUST mean, and I feel sure that Epicurus felt the same way about the religious pushers of supernaturalism in his day.

I don't think Epicurus admitted any of those things about true gods -- and that is why I used the Michael Jackson analogy -- I think he was using the word in a relative sense, to indicate full success in living (which means never dying) and full success in pleasure (which means never experiencing any pain) all in an absolutely natural way.

I know that means that people today will say "Well then he should not have called them gods!"

But we don't get to decide the meaning of terms -- whoever is living at the time gets to define things the way he wants, and I think that Epicurus thought it was perfectly appropriate to use the term "gods" in a way that accepts some attributes and discards others.

If that's 98% of the issue, then the other 2% of the issue is "Well we've got great telescopes and we've never seen any." The limitation in that argument ought to be obvious to anyone who is willing to entertain that the size of the universe is infinite. We've never yet discovered life elsewhere in the universe either, but as for me I am 100% confident that it's just a matter of time.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

Is it a form of sarcasm?

Absolutely not! Epicurus was not saying anything disparaging about his form of "gods" at all. He might have said something disparaging about the so-called supernatural gods, but there is nothing that I am aware of that documents that. The "Epicurus' riddle" is not really traceable back to Epicurus himself, but to the early church fathers' characterization of Epicurus' position, which I don't consider reliable in that degree of detail (the contradictions pointed out in the riddle sound Epicurean, but the "why call him god?" is probably not Epicurean, in my opinion since that conflicts with the rest of what we know about the Epicurean position).

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

I find it odd that Epicurus tells us not to harm others (so that they won't harm us, too, and inflict pain on us) while telling us not to fear the God (because he is harmless). It seems to me that this god is so useless he is close to non-existing entity.

I am not aware of any location where Epicurus tells us not to harm others. He tells us that if we do harm others we can expect retaliation, so we better be prepared and consider whether we want to harm that person or not, but he does not tell us absolutely not to harm others, and in fact it is implicit that we certainly will "harm" others if necessary and appropriate to protect our safety and happiness.

As far as this kind of god being useless, the first response of course is that it is not necessary for something to be useful to us in order for it to exist. Secondly, there is a "use" for Epicurean gods, as discussed above and by DeWitt. The argument seems to be that it enhances our happiness to have a correct conception of the highest form of life possible, and to realize that such a being is of no threat to us, and to serve as a sort of example of what we ourselves should strive for to the extent of our ability. I think it's a reasonable analogy to suggest that lots of young people improved their basketball skills by comparing themselves in their minds to Michael Jordan and other basketball "gods," just for one example, even though Michael Jordan never saw them, never instructed them, and never cared whether they existed or not.

I suppose it's really two questions, on which I'll give my personal opinion while admitting that this is just the result of my thinking/speculation applied to DeWitt's version:

1 - What do I think Epicurus taught? In summary I believe that Norman DeWitt is correct about what Epicurus taught, as described in his chapter 13 "The True Piety." I especially think that Dewitt is correct in pointing to the description of the gods by the Epicurean Velleius in Cicero's "On the Nature of the Gods," and holding that Epicurus held that information about the gods comes from "anticipations" and through "images" and that these are not the same thing, and that this is reinforced and/or supported to the observational issues of "isonomia" and the eternal / boundless universe theory. In sum I think it boils down to Epicurus holding that in an infinite and eternal universe with nature never only a creating a single thing of a kind, and with there being an "distribution" from from "high" to "low," that Epicurus believed that there existed in the universe real beings who had achieved deathlessness and were self-sufficiently "happy" with their own existence.

If you think as Epicurus did that life exists throughout the universe, and you observe here on Earth that life exists on a spectrum from worms to humans, then it makes sense to project those observations to the universe at large and expect that there are unlimited numbers of life beings that are lower and higher than ourselves, all of which are natural, but some of which have attained things that humans have not, including deathlessness and total self-sufficiency. And to the extent that some life forms have achieved that kind of unlimited life with total happiness, that seems like an admirable result and something that we humans can consider to hold in admiration as a kind of goal that we intuitively all would like to emulate to the extent that we can. It's clear that Epicurus did not think that these beings have any involvement or concern with human life, but it seems that he may have thought it possible that "images" of them might be sensed in some where as a result of their images floating through the universe, just like all sorts of other images seemed to him to be floating through the air all the time.

I think all this is sort of a nexus / sum of real observations here on earth (the isonomia, no single thing of a kind, spectrum observations) combined with a logical extension of these ideas out onto the theory of the eternal / infinite universe with life throughout it. So these gods are totally NOT supernatural, totally unconcerned with us, totally NOT omnipotent or omnipresent or any of the other attributes of "gods" assigned by the general monotheistic cults. He was calling them 'gods' in the sense that we might call Michael Jordan a "god of basketball" - supremely successful at "life" but still totally natural. (And this is probably similar to how he used the phrase "gods among men" that something that sounds like a goal he considered attainable, or the way Lucretius described Epicurus himself as a god.)

And I don't think that Epicurus thought this was all just idle speculation. I think he thought that his observations about life on earth combined with the deductive logic of atomism compels this conclusion when it is all applied to the eternal / infinite universe, with life not limited to earth and having no beginning. He seems to have thought that we should be rigorous in applying our observations to their logical conclusions, and that this is part of what you arrive at when you think about life in the rest of the universe outside earth.

Hiram / others sometime refer to this as a "space alien" theory, but I find terms like that to be unnecessarily demeaning and dismissive to the theory. Now I wouldn't be surprised if some of the ancient Epicureans were tongue-in-cheek, such as the apparent position that they thought the gods spoke Greek, and so I am sure that some of them had fun with the theorizing and so you have to be careful interpreting the surviving fragments. But in general I think Epicurus thought the theory was very serious and logical and helpful, and it was in no way a means of protecting himself from accusations of blasphemy, a means of manipulating weaker minds, or even a type of honey to help sick minds. I think he thought that the idea that humans are the only life in the universe was very damaging, just like it would be damaging to think that the Earth was at the center of the universe (which would imply that it is somehow special / special to a supernatual god). It was therefore important to him to have a reasonable theory about how a spectrum of life exists throughout the universe, and that the top of that spectrum would be in no way supernatural. I think he fully believed it himself with the caveat that he knew that he didn't have all the evidence we'd like to have so that theories of how the gods lived in detail was just pure speculation.

2 - What is my personal opinion of what I think Epicurus taught? I think it makes very good sense to me, and in those times when I want to think about the subject of life existing outside of earth I think this theory is very helpful for keeping perspective on where humanity stands in the nature of things. I agree with Epicurus that I think the universe as a whole has always existed, and that life is not limited to earth, and that similar natural mechanisms will proceed an unlimited number of places when under similar conditions, so when I put all that together I think humans are just one example of life and that there are huge numbers of lower forms of life in the universe elsewhere, huge numbers of "higher" forms of life, but every one of then natural. I think among the benefits of having a theory of a spectrum of beings like this is that it helps us keep perspective that we are neither at the top of the heap (and therefore we're not the special favorite of some god) but then neither are we something to be dismissive of and commit suicide because we're not something that we're not.

Along the lines of other comments in this same thread, I don't think it's necessary for everyone today to subscribe to a theory like this. But I do think Epicurus was looking at providing for a system of thought for "the millions," and he thought that many people feel compelled to think about life in the rest of the universe and where we stand in it, and that this theory provides an answer that is both beneficial and reasonably expectable to be true. And I'm one of the people who thinks about issues like this, so I applaud him for developing the theory, and I find it helpful myself.

1 - I think you are correct Oscar. Epicurus held but one position; the discussion of "acceptable" means to Hiram (as I understand it) positions that he considers it acceptable for modern Epicureans to take and still be part of the Society of Epicurus. You are right to observe that those are very different things.

2 - As to whether it is correct to say that Epicurus was an atheist, I also agree that it is wrong to label him an atheist without explaining the nature of Epicurean gods. If the definition of atheist requires that gods being rejeted are supernatural, then Epicurus was an atheist. If the definition of atheist means that the gods being atheist could be nonsupernatural, then Epicurus was clearly NOT an atheist. But it all turns on the definitions.

3 - As to the ultimate question I think you are aware of my personal position, so I won't repeat it here unless someone asks.

Exactly Elli, it appears to me that they considered "nothing comes from nothing and nothings goes to nothing" to be the rock on which everything else was based, and in fact at the end of book 1 they say that what is contained there in the atomic discussion is all you need to know to figure all the rest out for yourself -- like a hunting dog!

I need to get around to reading Stenger, which I have not done. Over time I really hope that this is an area that we can grow and have people who are "into" specialties like this and divide up the labor to do the review and analysis of the material. If we talking about this here now get too carried away with it ourselves we won't do the more important things that need doing. In that respect a lot of these problems do seem to be exactly what Epicurus faced and talked about, which is presumably why there was this flurry of allegations that he was anti-science, which I would bet my life was not at all true.

I think it's important to to emphasize his view of how alternative theories that are consistent with the evidence are all acceptable, as that does appears to have been a large part of his reasoning.

Quote from Godfrey

What this means to us laymen is that when we read a news story on the most current theory, we lack most of the building blocks leading up to it.

Which reminds me of this below, as I was flipping through and find this quote from Stephen Hawking.

The part in red I do not believe for a second. Just like for the last 2500 hundred years, I think it is a dead-correct bet that for the next 2500 years we'll be doing the same thing: observing, finding new evidence, constructing new theories, and then revising them over and over in a cycle. And in the meantime each generation lives only about 80 years at most, and has to decide how to live in the interim:

This quote is from this lecture by Hawking entitled "The Origin of the Universe": http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

So call me presumptuous and arrogant to suggest that I know better than Stephen Hawking, but I don't believe for a second that we are getting close to "ultimate" answers. On this I am comfortable with Frances Wright and 2500 year old reasoning. There will always be new discoveries and new horizons and unanswered questions for science to attack.

Quote from Elayne

That is why I think it's more helpful to tell people no matter what, there's no supernatural-- if they are on that simple of a thought process, maybe we can take Vic Stenger's stuff and simplify it. I don't know. I feel sure Epicurus could have done it but Idk if I can, lol.

I completely agree with that!

As to this:

Quote from Elayne

However, then the problem remains that we have data Epicurus didn't have-- and now his model no longer fits ALL the observed data. It's not just that we are missing data, in case you thought that was the problem -- it's also that we now have data that doesn't fit.

As to that I would say that we ought to be very rigorous in requiring confirmation and explanation of any data that allegedly does not fit. For example, if someone is alleging that all that has been observed is moving away from some center or in some other way expanding, then I would rigorously demand of him whether he is maintaining that he has now observed ALL matter, or exactly what he is claiming about that which he has not observed, for obvious reasons.

So I would apply to those who assert that the universe may not be eternal a requirement that they may fully accessible in complete detail the evidence that they say supports that conclusion, along with any reservations and limitations that they themselves admit exist (in the way that when Lawrence Krauss writes a book entitled "A Universe from Nothing" he admits that he really doesn't mean "nothing") And I would not give someone who was willing to do less than that the respect that I would give to Epicurus and the nothing from nothing / nothing to nothing argument unless and until the evidence and argument could be lined up in that kind of way.

Of course I am not suggesting any kind of bright line exists today or tomorrow on what to do or what not to do. I'm really just discussing in a general way the different approaches that make sense to talk about. Unless and until someone wants to suggest a "catechism" or some set of rules for a particular organization, it's not necessary for us to come up with that kind of rigor.

Of course the reason we are typing this, or course, is that coming up with that sort of list is exactly what the "Society of Epicurus" is doing, and so it's appropriate for the Society of Epicurus to deal with those issues (and to decide whether to take a position or not) since it is in the middle of that process. Hiram can do that, and then people can decide whether they want to be part of his organization or not based on the decisions he makes. As to us, we're just discussing!

Quote

That is why I think it's more helpful to tell people no matter what, there's no supernatural-

.... Which is kind of like the approach we probably should be taking on anticipations, Epicurean gods, and maybe other subjects where there are ambiguities that are difficult or impossible to resolve due to lack of texts and other issues.

No way we can do it now or over the short term, but over time we need to explore these issues in detail, group-sourcing the effort, and try to help each other here: Nothing From Nothing / Nothing To Nothing / Eternality and Infinity of the Universe

Quote from Elayne

This is one of those places where either I'm different from Epicurus or he would have taken physics data he didn't have access to back then into account and said that we have at least gotten enough info to be very certain there's no supernatural and no absolute. Both of us would feel equally secure in that knowledge even if we arrived at our conclusions differently.

I think what's going on here in our different perspectives probably explains why Epicurus ended up on the "incorrect" side of the size of the sun issue. I suspect that Epicurus was well aware of what the calculations indicated, and that he did not reject the calculations out of hand, but he had to make what he saw as a practical decision to deal with the supernatural claims of the mathematicians who were using their calculations to bolster the argument that the sun and the stars were gods due to their huge size. My suspicion is that he defaulted to his general rule -- a theory must explain ALL the observed facts in order to be held to be correct, and he decided that his observations as to (1) things far away aren't sharp, and (2) bright things don't lose their size so quickly, and (3) maybe other "sensory" arguments, and that those could not be discounted. Since those appeared to be true, and he did not know that the huge distances and/or issues of viewing through the atmosphere would cause distortions, he refused to credit the CONCLUSION that the sun was huge. And he probably calculated that any embarrassment caused by later discovery that he was factually wrong would pale in comparison with the happiness of those who used his argument to discount the supernatural arguments of the Platonists.

And if that was his reasoning (I know I am doing a lot of speculating) I would say that he was right to take the position he did, and I would do the same thing in his place. That's pretty much what I am doing, I admit, even though I have a good degree of confidence that in this situation, there really can''t be a limit to the size of the universe, and that there is an explanation for why everything observed so far may seem to imply a big bang (if in fact it does).

But the real contextual issue is probably not the question of relative amounts of information -- I personally think the most important consideration is that you (and maybe even a majority of our self-selected group) really are different from the run-of-the-mill person who does not have nearly the scientific disposition or background that we have. And I think that this is where DeWitt is right that Epicurus was pursuing a "Philosophy for the Millions." He calculated that his philosophy was needed by everyone, and ESPECIALLY for the non-scientists, who he could not expect to handle the mental challenge of all the uncertainty that constantly engaging in speculation and uncertainty causes. I do think that he was willing to say that as to these people, it was good for them to trust "authority" that they could tell had their best interests for happy living in mind, and that for these type of people "trust" in their "teachers" was the best course for them to follow -- because they could in no way duplicate or follow the speculative sciences themselves.

I think many of us are comfortable with all the uncertainty of the speculations, and we consider that it's just fun and or even cause for wonder and amazement, as you say. But I think it is true (and was true then) the the "majority" of the people in the world are just not capable or disposed or willing to engage in that kind of constant mental challenge. They want something understandable, effective, and accessible to them that will help them live happily, which after all I think we all agree is established to be the ultimate goal.

For many of us the mental challenge of keeping everything open and juggling in our minds is enjoyable, but for people like that it is terrifying. So while we would never affirmatively lie to them, if we really care about giving them a helpful philosophy of life then we present them with one that is manageable for them, just as we simplify things when we explain difficult issues to children.

Now you may think I am taking it all back but I will say this too: I do think that this approach of requiring a theory to fit ALL observable data before it is entertained as something to give credence to is the correct approach. And that is from each person's perspective, not from an absolute standard of what one or two of the greatest minds might say. If indeed we put that kind of trust in them for good reason, then maybe so, but we are not talking about Epicurus when we talk about Lawrence Krauss or any number of nameless (to the outside world) string physicists. It's just not logical to allow any individual or group of scientists, no matter how brilliant they may be, to say "you need to believe C because my theory says A and B and that adds up to C without any ability of the rest to follow the evidence and the argument. To place that kind of blind faith in a "scientist" seems to me to be no different than a tribesman placing it in a witch doctor.

So this is where I think it comes down, and where you are exactly right speaking for yourself:

Quote

Both of us would feel equally secure in that knowledge even if we arrived at our conclusions differently.

I am thinking that that applies to you, and to many of us here, but it doesn't apply to the "millions." Given the numerous texts about Epicurus' sincere desire to show the way to happiness, I don't think that anyone should see Epicurus' scepticism to the claims of theoretical science, or his reasoning on the size of the sun, to undermine their confidence in him.

And that relates back to the complaint from Cicero about the Epicureans in his view being uneducated: