Posts by Cassius

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.”

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 deduced from that factually-irrefutable starting point.

EDIT: I want to expand on this point in the future so I am setting up this thread in Physics: Proposition: It is not the "science" of Epicurus that should impress us, but rather the "perspective" on science, or, if you will, the "limit" on science.

Excellent point about "cult classics" --- that is a sense of the word that I do think applies. I also think of an analogy to "sports teams" in the modern world. People get very attached to their sports teams/clubs but most of the time they don't lose touch with reality in doing so.

Quote from Oscar

I think that's the least Epicurus requested from us in his dying words, no?

Yes probably so....... I just try to avoid the word "cult" because it has so many connotations of giving up one's independence of thought, which i think is inherently the opposite of what the philosophy teaches. I know that DeWitt used the word -- I suppose the connotations were bad in his day too, but I bet they are worse today. My take is that you can be like Lucretius and revere someone as a father figure or even godlike without giving up your own freedom or crossing the line into thinking that Epicurus could never have been wrong on anything.

Looks like something happened to my graphic clips above. I will try to find them and fix them.

Yes I am going to watch this later but I agree with Elayne, and the part you quoted Oscar seems very unfair to me. I suspect that this is overblown, even to some extent this from DeWitt:

Quote from Oscar

“His handbooks of doctrine were carried about like breviaries; his sayings were esteemed as if oracles and committed to memory as if Articles of Faith. His published letters were cherished as if epistles of an apostle. Pledges were taken to live obedient to his precepts. On the twentieth day of every month his followers assembled to perform solemn rites in honour of his memory, a sort of sacrament” - Dr. N.W. DeWitt concerning the most revered and the most reviled of all founders of thought in the Graeco-Roman world

To be charitable I would think that this might apply to SOME people, or might apply to YOUNG people who were being trained at younger ages, but I do not think that it is likely accurate to broad-brush the entire school as overly cultish.

I think it is very possible to respect and admire someone and give them the benefit of the doubt when you aren't sure of something yourself, without giving up your own mind and feelings and your own senses and your own evidence, especially when the core of what that person is teaching you is that you MUST use your own mind and feelings and senses to weigh the evidence, since that is how he came up with the philosophy in the first place.

Just to be clear I am not saying that you Oscar have a false view, I am saying that I see in a lot of commentators, especially the more Stoic-minded ones, the tendency to see Epicureans in an unflattering way, which in my mind is likely caused by the fact that they disagree so strongly with Epicurean viewpoints on religion, ethics, etc.

Definitely will keep you posted Charles. As soon as I break through my mental block on getting a first episode of Lucretius done, I will move to this, and we can probably set up and entirely different schedule so that we can do both simultaneously.

Yes Charles please keep going as you have time. I know Elayne has thoughts on this issue as well. As I see it , it seems to break down for me first into issues of awareness, and being aware of multiple things at the same time, which I think is possible, so that some things you are aware of are pleasurable and others are painful in different parts of your experience at the same time. I would think Epicurus would say that that is possible, but Elayne may have some thoughts on that.

But then there is the theoretical / logical side of this problem, which is where I think Epicurus thought it was important to keep the two in distinct categories without compromise or blending of multiple observations at the same time.

This takes us back to Philebus and the "purity" argument, because if you admit to blends of pleasure and pain then you are faced with the contradiction that you then must have some science that tells you what blend is "best." So long as you keep pain and pleasure separate, pleasure is always desirable and pain is always undesirable, but definition. But if you admit "mixed" states then you are forced to come up with some other standard of choice, other than PLEASURE, by which to choose what mixture is best. This leads you down the path of embracing "Wisdom" or "reason" as the factor by which to choose, and if you make wisdom or reason your ultimate factor of choice, then you end up displacing pleasure as the ultimate guide of life.

I know I am truncating the argument way too much, but I know that this last part I just stated is in Philebus, and I believe it is critical to link Epicurus' arguments to these logical disputes, for which I think they are his answers.

Even if there are reasons to question the "awareness" issues I mention above (and again I cannot recall Elayne's full positions on this) I still think that the logical issues are themselves sufficient to explain Epicurus' argument (though ultimately I think the logical issues and the awareness issues go hand in hand).

Oscar I personally am MUCH more comfortable with graphics, in which I have the ability to make effort, even if not much talent, vs the musical part, at which I have no talent or aptitute whatever. So anything you can piece together on the music side I am happy to work on graphics for.

In the above discussion I don't think that Hiram is including all of the detail that even in the partial form that we have it that Epicurus / Lucretius cited. I think if you check Dewitt you will see that there is both (1) the argument from anticipations, which is most fully preserved in the Velleius narrative in Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods," and (2) the direct receipt of "images" though space by the mind.

Those who reject Epicurus' theory tend to focus on the images argument and blend that into the anticipations argument, but someone attempting to weigh all the evidence of what the texts contain would need to consider both the anticipations argument and the "images" argument.

There's a lot going on in the consideration of Epicurean gods, and my personal viewpoint is that Hiram is hanging too much weight on his own personal weighing of the current state of scientific evidence, which is by definition not complete and is ever changing. It's definitely a problem also to site the evidence that the universe is expanding (that refers to the OBSERVABLE universe) to contradict the Epicurean theoretical position that the universe is boundless in size. I have to admit that that one always bothers me. Just because the part of the universe that we have OBSERVED seems to be expanding from a central point does not countermand the logical deduction that the universe is boundless in size, and that presumably there are all sorts of other areas that are expanding or collapsing or whatever based on their own histories.

To talk about the "universe" as expanding from a center is going to be out of court from the beginning in Epicurean terms. Of course we can go back to the issue of definitions and say that "universe" doesn't mean EVERYTHING, and if so that's fine, but that's not the traditional use of the term "universe."

I looked at some more of the youtube versions of this song. Even if each line needs to truncated severely, it should be easy to fill in the gaps with a slide show / graphic illustrating each principle in much more full form. Then the song line can become the memory device for the full doctrine illustrated in in the picture, kind of like with the Tetrapharmakon

You are very correct Oscar - I just reviewed the original and each line is going to need to be much more compact than I have written it.

Oscar I am am very interested in anything you would suggest!

Before I made the first set of suggestions I should have gone back and studied the format of the music, because now I am remembering that it seems many of the gifts were very short "five golden rings" (?) and I wasn't remembering accurately how the lines fit together to go with the flow.

If you are so inclined any ideas that you have would be welcome. I do think that using this a a memory device would be very useful.

This is a subject that has come up before and I will probably move this to the ethics subforum later. I see an issue here on the question of how we describe the sum of our experience at any one moment, in which I think there is an issues that (1) our experience at any one moment probably contains all sorts of feelings, mental and physical, but which obviously can't be focused on at one time, and how this relates to (2) pleasure and pain being distinct feelings that never blend together to form a third type of feeling.

This comes up today because I see a facebook comment from Mike Anyayahan and I composed this comment about it. I'll post it here as a general comment to see what people think about this:

Mike: I saw you posted this on your timeline: "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 think I see a thread of thought there which might be worth discussing -- the "only" part. I think it is correct Epicurean thought to point out that pleasure and pain are separate feelings and do not blend together. However it is probably also true that we experience many different types of feelings at different times, and even at the same time in different parts of our experience, so I would think it is possible to experience some feelings of mental pleasure while also having a concern that there are worries that need to be addressed (which I think is probably what peace of mind involves). So I would question the "only." Also, the last two sentences might be read to mean that wants should be extinguished, which I don't think would be a correct Epicurean statement.

And factually, it is probably not true that "you are still wanting only when you have no limit to what you want" is it? I am thinking there that the "limit to what you want" is a conceptual point of view that is highly useful for us to think about in debating the nature of pleasure. However as far as day to day life goes I think you can probably be a good Epicurean, acknowledging that pleasure has a limit (as discussed by PD3, Elayne, and elsewhere in this thread), and still feeling hungry when you have not eaten all day.

These comments are largely nitpicks but I think what you are writing is intended to be seen as a general statement of a "rule." So I am thinking that some of the points could probably be tightened up to be more accurate to the Epicurean viewpoint (which I am presuming is your goal there).

This reminds me that I am aware that Diskin Clay, to mention one commentator, came up with a different version of the twelve than did DeWiit. I will paste here the clips that i have on that and also upload the full article. Clay's version does not make the point stated by DeWitt in his number 4.

I have personally been disposed to reject Mr. Clay's version because he counts ten principles of physics, and then to round out the twelve ( a number I understand was referenced as a book title in Diogenes Laertius) he considers the first two of the PD's (about gods and death) to be the last two of the twelve. That does not sound convincing to me. I could see a stretched argument that PD1 might have some physics implication, but not PD2. This material will help in analysing the DeWitt material however.

Also, I remember some commentator somewhere saying that Clay's version was "more careful" than that of DeWitt. However as I read back over these I think Dewitt was probably correct in thinking that the twelve principles were very specifically related to the nature of the atoms, from which the more sweeping principles arise, but are not specifically stated as among the fundamentals themselves. It seems to me that Clay is mixing axioms (nothing comes into being or goes out of being) with conclusions (the universe is as it always was and will be). I think DeWitt is probably correct that all 12 would have been more like axioms than conclusions.

(On a personal note I should say I have a high regard for Diskin Clay because shortly after I starting studying Epicurus I wrote him a letter - maybe about 2011; obviously before he died - and he was gracious enough to write me a nice note in response, so I will always be appreciative of that.)

Here is the full article from which these two pages come:

File

Diskin Clay: Epicurus' Last Will and Testament

The title of this article is very figuratively written, and the subject is not at all focused narrowly on Epicurus' last will, but much more broadly on Epicurus' general legacy, with a lot of attention to physics.

Cassius

January 4, 2020 at 10:41 PM

Ok I did not remember this exactly as I find it now:

Footnote 8 is to Diogenes Laertius 10.40-41 which may not be of much help.

Thanks Oscar!

on this one -

Quote from Oscar

"Atoms in a body can be more than one type" to "atom's types are plenty"

I was afraid I was already getting to far away from what appears to be the point:

PN 04 "Solid bodies are either compounds or simple."

I need to look back at the intent of that one, which seems to be separate and distinct from

PN 12 - "The number of the different shapes is not infinite, merely innumerable."

In other words, it may be that 4 is making such a different point than 12 that it might not be appropriate simply to say "there are lots of different types of atoms. Without going back to DeWitt as I type this, I seem to remember that he was thinking that it was important to Lucretius / Epicurus to note the existence of heaps of atoms of the same type, such as "pure gold" or anything else composed of a single element. Now offhand I can't think of what the significance of that would be, but I'll go back to dewitt and see what I can find, and also compare the letter to Herodotus and try to find the section in Lucretius that would involve this issue.

I definitely remember reading the part about why the atoms can't be infinite in shape - because we know that the shapes don't get large enough for us to observe a single atom -- eveything that rises to what we see (is this the meaning of the "shores of light phrase"?) can be split, so i think that's the observation that proves the rule that a single atom itself never rises to the size of being visible.

But following on our recent conversation about how Epicurus was intent on his anti-Platonism, there may be a reason why it would be important to note that a visible body may be composed of atoms of only a single type.

Anyone have any ideas?

Note: It's possible that DeWitt has this wrong, since his is a reconstruction, but again I need to check the text.....

OK Friends, this is both a promise and a threat. Unless I get some creative assistance with this, you are eventually going to hear me sing this, and I promise that would be painful. I am sure some of you can do much better, and have better suggestions for rewording / rephrasing, before we get to that point.

However, this is a starting point, based on Norman DeWitt's reconstruction of Epicurus Twelve Fundamentals of Nature. Of course the final product must be something that can be sung to "the twelve days of Christmas" keeping as close to the fundamental points made by Epicurus as possible. Obviously also in this project a singer would really have to be flexible in singing the words at a pace that would fit the music.

Here is my first effort. If I can get some help we will spread credit (or blame) around appropriately! ---->

The Twelve Days of Class With Epicurus

On the first day of class Epicurus taught to me:

Nothing can be made from no-thing.

On the second day of class Epicurus taught to me:

No thing can be split to nothing, and

Nothing can be made from no-thing.

On the third day of class Epicurus taught to me:

Every thing is made of atoms and void,

No thing can be split to nothing, and

Nothing can be made from no-thing.

On the fourth day of class Epicurus taught to me:

Atoms in a body can be more than one type,

Every thing is made of atoms and void,

No thing can be split to nothing, and

Nothing can be made from no-thing.

On the fifth day of class Epicurus taught to me:

There's no limit to the number of atoms,

Atoms in a body can be more than one type,

Every thing is made of atoms and void,

No thing can be split to nothing, and

Nothing can be made from no-thing.

On the sixth day of class Epicurus taught to me:

There's no limit to the size of the void,

There's no limit to the number of atoms,

Atoms in a body can be more than one type,

Every thing is made of atoms and void,

No thing can be split to nothing, and

Nothing can be made from no-thing.

On the seventh day of class Epicurus taught to me:

The atoms are always in motion,

There's no limit to the size of the void,

There's no limit to the number of atoms,

Atoms in a body can be more than one type,

Every thing is made of atoms and void,

No thing can be split to nothing, and

Nothing can be made from no-thing.

On the eighth day of class Epicurus taught to me:

The speed of all the atoms is the same,

The atoms are always in motion,

There's no limit to the size of the void,

There's no limit to the number of atoms,

Atoms in a body can be more than one type,

Every thing is made of atoms and void,

No thing can be split to nothing, and

Nothing can be made from no-thing.

On the ninth day of class Epicurus taught to me:

The atoms move in lines and also bounce,

The speed of all the atoms is the same,

The atoms are always in motion,

There's no limit to the size of the void,

There's no limit to the number of atoms,

Atoms in a body can be more than one type,

Every thing is made of atoms and void,

No thing can be split to nothing, and

Nothing can be made from no-thing.

On the tenth day of class Epicurus taught to me:

Atoms can swerve at any point or time,

The atoms move in lines and also bounce,

The speed of all the atoms is the same,

The atoms are always in motion,

There's no limit to the size of the void,

There's no limit to the number of atoms,

Atoms in a body can be more than one type,

Every thing is made of atoms and void,

No thing can be split to nothing, and

Nothing can be made from no-thing.

On the eleventh day of class Epicurus taught to me:

Atoms have a weight a shape and size,

Atoms can swerve at any point or time,

The atoms move in lines and also bounce,

The speed of all the atoms is the same,

The atoms are always in motion,

There's no limit to the size of the void,

There's no limit to the number of atoms,

Atoms in a body can be more than one type,

Every thing is made of atoms and void,

No thing can be split to nothing, and

Nothing can be made from no-thing.

On the twelfth day of class Epicurus taught to me:

The atom shapes are not numbered nor in-fi-nite,

Atoms have a weight a shape and size,

Atoms can swerve at any point or time,

The atoms move in lines and also bounce,

The speed of all the atoms is the same,

The atoms are always in motion,

There's no limit to the size of the void,

There's no limit to the number of atoms,

Atoms in a body can be more than one type,

Every thing is made of atoms and void,

No thing can be split to nothing, and

Nothing can be made from no-thing.

Can anyone offer assistance or suggestions?

(No, "forget the project" isn't acceptable, and won't save you in the end, because I intend to incorporate some form of this into eventual podcasting to go through these hugely important aspects of Epicurean philosophy.)