Posts by Cassius

Welcome Eoghan Gardiner! When you have time please let us know a little about your background and interest in Epicurus. Thanks for joining us!

JAWS do you see honor as a subset of justice?

Before I forget I want to mention something that I want to record somewhere in the anticipation discussion: the short book "Dialog on Innate Principles" by Jackson Barwis. In that book Barwis articulates a theory that we have innate dispositions to find some ideas pleasing and others painful and if we did not we would have no means of understanding the meaning of concepts that carry an emotional loading. His view is something I believe is helpful in describing how Epicurus would view this topic. We are not born with innate "ideas" but with dispositional principles of functioning that make us find some abstract evaluations more pleasing than others just as some ice cream is more pleasing. http://newepicurean.com/jacksonbarwis/ In my view that book is a gem and I read it regularly almost as poetry.

Here is a post I made on this topic http://newepicurean.com/following-a-20…-anticipations/

Back to Epicurus: if I recall DeWitt says the only other examples in the texts are divinity (where Epicurus says that false ideas of gods are NOT true anticipations) and there is something also about time.

Also the big debate as to anticipation is whether they are a description of the process of conceptualization (I have seen several cows in a field and I summarize them as concept "cow" so the next time I see one I compare to picture of cow stored in my mind). That is NOT Dewitts view but it is the majority view. I agree with DeWitt, using the model of Barwis, but that is a fundamental issue that creates lots of heat in part because most adopt the total "blank slate" theory (which is IMHO much more Aristotlean than Epicurean).

Using your example, i think Barwis and Epicurus would contend that children find honoring ones word pleasing from the very first time someone keeps their word, and breaking ones word painful from the very first time, without need of prior experience. But the majority way experience is necessary in order to form the concept.

If you choose to follow DeWitt / Barwis on this be prepared for a lonely fight, but here again I believe this is the path to the only consistent understanding of Epicurus, the dilution of which by later Epicureans was a major error.

KDF what is your definition of "free will"? We probably always ought to start at that level.

Yes - this is the key for me: "facebook isn't helping me accomplish my goals"

KDF, also, could you post here about how you found this forum? I presume most people find it through Facebook, but if there someone comes here through other means that would be good to know. We've used google's "adsense" at times in the past as another source of "advertising," but I'm always on the lookout for new places to post notices about the forum.

At this early stage in our development one of the best things our friends here can do to help the forum is to start new threads to get discussions going. Even if you don't have answers, disagree with Epicurus on a point, or are just posting questions or unresolved thoughts, activity spurs activity, so as you have time please post! And don't worry if you don't have time for a sustained discussion when you start the topic - this forum software makes topics into what is effectively a database where time is not an issue. Discussions can go on for years as you have time, and what may seem a throwaway short post today could turn into a gem of a discussion tomorrow!

KDF now that we have a thread started on three will it seems to me that at least three others of your points are also worth discussing further, these three being points I thin Epicurus would agree with but which are not frequently discussed in the way you state them. When you have time could you consider picking appropriate forums and posting new threads?

1. All that we should ask from society is to ensure that no one be compelled by force to do anything against there will
2. One has the ability to remove resentment and self-pity from there thinking; removing resentment and self-pity greatly improves happiness
3. One should not suffer a contradiction in their principals; self-deception is the root of much unhappiness

I think point 3 probably falls within the Canon / epistemology discussion, resentment-pity under ethics, and the role of society perhaps under justice.

Thank you for discussing this so civilly as it frequently becomes more heat than light. The great benefit of this forum software is that we can pick up the conversation and add to it over time. This is a topic I need to look further into as I have never pursued it in the detail necessary to be fluent in it. In fact, I am not able easily to even draw up a list of the major arguments of the Pro and Con sides, which probably ought to be a starting point (perhaps a new thread in this same forum group.).

Has the topic interested you (or Eric) enough that one of you has already done that?

I hope this isn't a tangent, and I don't mean it to be argumentative, but here is an aspect of this discussion I have never understood:

If "the conscious experience of having free will is the same as the conscious experience of lacking free will. In other words, one wouldn't know the difference empirically (or with your senses)"

Then why is this issue of such great importance to hard determinists? It is always been my observation that hard determinists are much more interested in refuting free will than those who hold free will are in refuting hard determinism.

In Epicurus' position, it seems to me that he decided to weigh in on the issue because the existence of the hard determinist argument poses a hurdle to happiness for those who think that hard determinism means that they have no ability to work to make their own lives more happy. So that was Epicurus' motivation for the argument.

What is the motivation of the hard determinists?

Thank you for posting this! It's a very important issue and we need to discuss it thoroughly. It's going to take time but I know several people are here are interested in this so let's explore it in as much detail as we can.

KDF would you mind if we move the discussion to the forum area set up for this topic. Could you please post a brief summary of your view here: "Free Will" - Freedom of Choice Within Limits And Bounds vs. Determinism

Welcome KDF! Thank you for posting your outline as it is a great way to discuss differences and similarities in Epicurean philosophy. My comments below are made in that spirit - not to criticize any aspect of what is "your" outline, but to comment on how it might differ from Epicurus:

First, as to "A.) The Nature of the Universe" - (2) you no doubt realize, but I must point out, that you are stating a position very different from Epicurus as to "free will." Epicurus contended that the swerve of the atom provides a basis for some freedom of will (within limits) and held that freedom to be essential to our confidence in being able to live happily.

1. The universe is indifferent to the cares and wants of conscious beings
2. We live in a deterministic universe. There is no free will, but as conscious beings that can never be aware of our own lack of free will, this lack is not relevant to how we find meaning in our lives. (I think that Christopher Hithchens put it best when he said that he believes in free will, because he "has no choice.")

As to Knowledge and truth, it seems to me that your statements are generally consistent with Epicurus, but would require considerable more elaboration to be more clear. But I think especially as to (2) the observation that there are biological limits is an important aspect.

B.) Knowledge / Truth

1. We know what we can observe with our senses or has been passed on to us at a genetic level
2. There are biological limits to what we can know and observe (this does not imply a non-material universe)

As to Ethics, again I think you are largely consistent with Epicurus. Certainly there is no absolutely morality that applies everywher and at all times. "Happiness" is clearly a word that approximates the goal, although there is a great need for clarity in explaining how happiness relates to pleasure. And clearly independence is also critical to the best life, as we can observe starting with how any young animal reacts when placed in a cage.

C.) Ethics / How to Live

1. There is no absolute morality
2. Happiness is the ultimate goal to life
3. Financial independence greatly improves, but is not essential to, an individuals ability to attain happiness (I think that if Epicurus lived today that PDs 6, 7, 21, 39, & 40 would have referenced having F-U Money)
4. By reducing wants and needs one can greatly improve one's ability to achieve financial independence
5. All that we should ask from society is to ensure that no one be compelled by force to do anything against there will
6. One has the ability to remove resentment and self-pity from there thinking; removing resentment and self-pity greatly improves happiness
7. One should not suffer a contradiction in their principals; self-deception is the root of much unhappiness

Every one of your observations is worth much more detailed discussion. Welcome again to the forum, and I hope you will look around at the various topics and post questions and your own comments in the topics that interest you!

Welcome KDF ! When you have time please let us know a little about your background and interest in Epicurus. Thanks for joining us!

I just posted this at Facebook.

Exactly, Jason. Exactly.

Happy Twentieth! The accompanying graphic from Edward Snowden reminds me that two thoughts have been swirling in my mind as I move forward with my Epicurean thoughts:

(1) I have always considered the heart of PD39 to be its caution that it is NOT possible to make everyone into one family; that it is NOT possible to avoid treating some people as aliens, and that it is sometimes necessary to exclude some people from one's life. It concerns me greatly that our participation at Facebook in what is essentially a surveillance system may in the long run be very negative. 39. "The man who best knows how to meet external threats makes into one family all the creatures he can; and those he can not, he at any rate does not treat as aliens; and where he finds even this impossible, he avoids all dealings, and, so far as is advantageous, excludes them from his life."

(2) I strongly believe that were Epicurus here today he would embrace what Nietzsche wrote at the end of "Antichrist" to all of the Abrahamic religions that are so dominant today: 62: "—With this I come to a conclusion and pronounce my judgment. I condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his mouth. It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption. The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul. Let any one dare to speak to me of its "humanitarian" blessings! Its deepest necessities range it against any effort to abolish distress; it lives by distress; it creates distress to make itself immortal… For example, the worm of sin: it was the church that first enriched mankind with this misery!—The "equality of souls before God"—this fraud, this pretext for the rancunes of all the base-minded—this explosive concept, ending in revolution, the modern idea, and the notion of overthrowing the whole social order—this is Christian dynamite… The "humanitarian" blessings of Christianity forsooth! To breed out of humanitas a self-contradiction, an art of selfpollution, a will to lie at any price, an aversion and contempt for all good and honest instincts! All this, to me, is the "humanitarianism" of Christianity!—Parasitism as the only practice of the church; with its anaemic and "holy" ideals, sucking all the blood, all the love, all the hope out of life; the beyond as the will to deny all reality; the cross as the distinguishing mark of the most subterranean conspiracy ever heard of,—against health, beauty, well-being, intellect, kindness of soul—against life itself… This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found—I have letters that even the blind will be able to see… I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,—I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race…

And so on this Twentieth I am trying to absorb the implications of both.

In the meantime, Happy Twentieth!

As the arguments are developed we can split each argument out into a separate thread, marked with its point of origin (e.g. Plato, Philebus....) to be followed by discussion of each argument. Therefore in this General thread, please suggest particular arguments and sources so that they can be organized by topic.

As to the historical setting at the time of Epicurus, this was offered on Facebook as a reference work, and looks pretty good:

https://archive.org/stream/athensh…ge/n25/mode/2up

Example: Is there a relationship here? If not, what other questions might provide the context for PD3?

Plato (Philebus):

SOCRATES: Have pleasure and pain a limit, or do they belong to the class which admits of more and less?

PHILEBUS: They belong to the class which admits of more, Socrates; for pleasure would not be perfectly good if she were not infinite in quantity and degree.

SOCRATES: Nor would pain, Philebus, be perfectly evil. And therefore the infinite cannot be that element which imparts to pleasure some degree of good. But now — admitting, if you like, that pleasure is of the nature of the infinite — in which of the aforesaid classes, O Protarchus and Philebus, can we without irreverence place wisdom and knowledge and mind? And let us be careful, for I think that the danger will be very serious if we err on this point.

Epicurus: PD 3. "The limit of quantity in pleasures is the removal of all that is painful. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, there is neither pain of body nor of mind, nor of both at once."