Posts by Cassius

This article says that "atheists" tend to prefer cats. We should take a poll of Epicureans to see how we stack up.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7…KZGahsaC1QtS4Uk

So that this allegation by Cicero from "On the Nature of the Gods" is not a "bug" in Epicurean philosophy - it's a "feature." It's because of what Epicurus would call an incorrect philosophical position that Cicero thinks he needs to attack in this way. Cicero was ultimately in bed with the skeptics such as Plato (which as Dewitt says Epicurus considered Plato to be) and denying the possibility of confidence in knowledge based on the senses:

Quote

Hereupon Velleius began, in the confident manner (I need not say) that is customary with Epicureans, afraid of nothing so much as lest he should appear to have doubts about anything. One would have supposed he had just come down from the assembly of the gods in the intermundane spaces of Epicurus! “I am not going to expound to you doctrines that are mere baseless figments of the imagination, such as the artisan deity and world-builder of Plato's Timaeus, or that old hag of a fortuneteller the Pronoia (which, we may render ‘Providence’) of the Stoics; nor yet a world endowed with a mind and senses of its own, a spherical, rotatory god of burning fire; these are the marvels and monstrosities of philosophers who do not reason but dream.

EDIT: Stated another way, Cicero and Hitchens are implying that you can never "know" anything beyond your own lifetime based on the information provided by the senses. He is saying that you MUST either (1) intellectually disarm yourself to become a jellyfish and waffle through life, or (2) look to some other source of authority beyond the senses. So the real battlefield here is over the meaning of "to know."

And we all know (or should know) that there are LOTS of people who are happy to make these arguments against confidence in knowledge based on the senses -- because they will usher you directly into the waiting arms of religion, idealism, etc. Some people make these arguments innocently, but I don't think the people who are out there promoting them are innocent or mistaken. Someone who was innocently a skeptical jellyfish would be content to waffle around in its own corner of the ocean being a jellyfish rather than being a crusader against people who think that it is rational to have confidence in conclusions that are strongly consistent with the available evidence.

Militant jellyfishism is what we see everywhere, and it's like Diogenes of Oinoanda lamented that he saw people around him being captured by error is if like sheep.

Quote

Having already reached the sunset of my life (being almost on the verge of departure from the world on account of old age), I wanted, before being overtaken by death, to compose a [fine] anthem [to celebrate the] fullness [of pleasure] and so to help now those who are well-constituted. Now, if only one person or two or three or four or five or six or any larger number you choose, sir, provided that it is not very large, were in a bad predicament, I should address them individually and do all in my power to give them the best advice. But, as I have said before, the majority of people suffer from a common disease, as in a plague, with their false notions about things, and their number is increasing (for in mutual emulation they catch the disease from one another, like sheep)

Quote

And I am content to think that some contradictions will remain contradictory, some problems will never be resolved by the mammalian equipment of the human cerebral cortex, and some things are indefinitely unknowable. If the universe was found to be finite or infinite, either discovery would be equally stupefying and impenetrable to me

That is an interesting quote from Hitchens and I do think it illustrates a way in which though he admired Epicurus, he was not fully Epicurean.

I think that Epicurus would go further and differently than this, because Epicurus would process the information and attempt to come to a conclusion in which he could be confident that the discovery (especially that the universe is "finite") assisted him in concluding whether to entertain the possibility of supernatural control.

Because if we DO have to entertain supernatural creation and control, then all bets are off on everything. And I do mean "bets" because it is not a matter of considering all this to be "stupefying" or "impenetrable." We have finite lives and we have no choice but to take practical positions on what to do with our time - whether to go to church and worship Allah or Yahweh or whoever, or base our decisions on Epicurean or some other philosophy.

So OF COURSE this next point is true......

Quote

And I am content to think that some contradictions will remain contradictory, some problems will never be resolved by the mammalian equipment of the human cerebral cortex, and some things are indefinitely unknowable.

The question is really what is meant by "knowable." If Hitchens is suggesting that anything less than "I am eternal myself and I have observed everything myself and therefore I KNOW the universe is infinite or finite" is required in order to say that you "know" something, then that is a false standard and never going to be satisfying to someone who thinks about ultimate issues like Epicurus did.

It's a FACT that in our lifetimes we have and will have limited evidence, just as Hitchens did in his lifetime. We have to make our decision on how to live based on what we think of the evidence before us. Everyone has to do that. Epicurus is saying that it is foolish to walk around being stupefied and thinking everything that is really important to you is impenetrable. he is saying look around, observe all the facts you can, and then live by a method that incorporates all of the observed facts and doesn't contradict any of them.

Quote from Elayne

I advise caution in saying that there would be any scientific discovery we would reject on the grounds that someone would use it to insert their god of the gaps. We are wisest to base knowledge on evidence, not worry about trying to get evidence to exclude religionists.

Yes I agree but as I see it I am making a somewhat different point.

I would never suggest that we reject a "discovery" or "evidence" -- I am talking "theory."

In other words, if there is indeed evidence that everything observed so far is expanding in one or more directions, then we definitely "accept" that evidence -- but not necessarily every conclusion that someone suggests should be drawn from it.

We first and also have the firmly established observation that nothing comes from or goes to nothing. We don't throw that out the door just because we have evidence of expansion. We now have two separate sets of evidence, and the "truth" must incorporate BOTH to be valid, since we cannot throw out either.

So the point I think is valid is that we can never throw out any evidence, but we can and must throw out theories that are not consistent with ALL the observed facts. In those cases where we can't pin down a likely answer we accept all possible alternatives that ARE consistent with the facts, even when incomplete or ambiguous, and/or we follow the "wait" method.

Aside : we should try to stake a public domain claim in the name of Epicureans everywhere for graphics designed with this combination of letters:

NFN

NTN

Or

NFN/NTN

Or

NFN>NTN>EU>IU>

Nothing from nothing> nothing to nothing>eternal universe >infinite universe> pleasure as the guide of life.

Quote

knowledge of how things began is probably beyond our grasp

That phrasing from such an article would be an example of the problem. The implication that everything in the universe "began" at a single point in time conflicts with the observed nothing comes from nothing or goes to nothing, and therefore should not even be entertained as a valid theory since it does not incorporate all reliable evidence. And the implication that there was some mysterious "we'll never know" inflection point in time (which again conflicts with nfn/ntn) plays right into the hands of the " gnostics" who claim to possess some special revelation of the "truth").

At most, an expanding area within a total universe would appear to imply that that locality, and not the whole, had an explosive event that might then be followed by a collapse of that section - but never of the whole universe.

I believe an Epicurean plan of early education would start with premises such as "eternal universe" based on nfn / ntn to the point where the "normal" person would consider phrases such as "universe began" with the same disdain as we hear someone speaking of human sacrifices to appease the gods.

As things are, the default position is "in the beginning, god created the heaven and the earth" and that has brought a cascade of disastrous thinking.

And I don't think there is any coincidence, accident, or mistake in the rise of such terminology in religion, or in its incorporation and embrace by large parts of humanist-friendly modern society. It plays right into the hands of monotheism / absolutist thinking. See, the universe DOES have a central point from which one perspective is correct! We may be separate atoms today, but one day the universe will all come back together into one uniform homogeneous whole where we all get along with no conflicts at all.

Obviously I am saying this just for myself and not as a red line of "you're not an Epicurean if you don't believe it," but that is why I think the chain reasoning of nfn/ntn >> eternal universe >> boundless universe >> life throughout the universe was so important to Epicurus and should be so important to us.

It's acceptable as Epicurus said to maintain multiple theories that are consistent with the evidence, but anything less (a flat "we dont know") reduces our response to religion and platonism to "maybe you're right, we can't prove it because we weren't there and we'll never know because the origin of things is 'beyond our grasp.'" And this leads directly to "Your Yahweh is entitled to as much respectful consideration as my eternal universe, because we ourselves personally weren't there and therefore we can never know for sure."

It seems to me that Epicurus stands for the proposition that we can and should do better than that.

Excellent points Elayne and JJ. So long as the model does not create the inference of "everything" starting at a single moment from nothing / supernaturally," I suppose that would be an example of alternate acceptable theories of the type Epicurus said was AOK. Now of course it's beyond the scope of my ability to deal with, but I think if we were talking about a well-developed Epicurean community there would be effort directed toward making sure that there was an understandable theory available to "everyone" which didn't imply "spookiness" / implicit supernatural factors, which I gather is the aura that certain people like to create exactly for the purpose of spreading religious views, or simply for the fun of keeping simpler people disconcerted.

Such a theory would probably need to address the point about whether "everything that we observe so far seems to be expanding" applies to our expectation for everything not yet observed, and if so why or why not.

Quote from Elayne

Experienced drivers can get distracted and drive home, avoiding obstacles, without having paid any attention.

Great example. Some of my most helpful sessions listening and thinking about Epicurus have been driving while listening to podcasts, and when I get where I am going I hardly remember the drive.

Oscar:

Quote from Godfrey

In terms of the feelings of pleasure or pain, I experienced pleasure from the sun's heat, but only the sensation of the sore throat.

Intuitively that makes sense to me, that you experience both. I am not sure that there is a workable distinction between sensations and feelings (or "experiences) but maybe that needs to be considered.

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

Quote from Cassius

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from Godfrey

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

Quote from Godfrey

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

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

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

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

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

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

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

Human consciousness on the other hand is single-threaded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from Hiram

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

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

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

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

Quote from Hiram

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

Not a possibility that I myself would ever admit!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relevant Principal Doctrines:

22. We must consider both the real purpose, and all the evidence of direct perception, to which we always refer the conclusions of opinion; otherwise, all will be full of doubt and confusion.

23. If you fight against all sensations, you will have no standard by which to judge even those of them which you say are false.

24. If you reject any single sensation, and fail to distinguish between the conclusion of opinion, as to the appearance awaiting confirmation, and that which is actually given by the sensation or feeling, or each intuitive apprehension of the mind, you will confound all other sensations, as well, with the same groundless opinion, so that you will reject every standard of judgment. And if among the mental images created by your opinion you affirm both that which awaits confirmation, and that which does not, you will not escape error, since you will have preserved the whole cause of doubt in every judgment between what is right and what is wrong.

25. If on each occasion, instead of referring your actions to the end of nature, you turn to some other, nearer, standard, when you are making a choice or an avoidance, your actions will not be consistent with your principles.

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

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

From Chapter 15:

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