Posts by Cassius

Thank you Brett and I hope we will have many productive interactions on this journey!

After a great deal of reflection on the state of my Epicurean activities and goals, I have decided on a number of changes that I will be implementing in the near future:

(1) I am convinced that Facebook adds very little additional utility, and many negatives, to philosophical activism. While I have learned a great deal and “met” many great people by using it, Facebook has never been a good platform for extended philosophical discussion. Worse, Facebook seems headed in a direction of greator censorship and use of algorithms that make it harder and harder to see the content that users want to see. And worst of all, many of us have put great time and effort in composing posts with lots of detail which should be part of an ongoing chain of reference for years to come. Due to the way Facebook is structured, however, those posts are quickly lost forever. I am not yet at the point of closing my account, because I think Facebook remains viable for “advertising” and allowing new people to find my work. It may come to that, but what I am definitely going to do in the meantime is to cease making “new-original” posts at Facebook. Any new posts I generate will simply be links that begin at NewEpicurean.com or Epicureanfriends.com. I will post links to those article son Facebook just as I do for Twitter and other platforms to which I expect to expand, such as Minds.com, Gab.ai, and others. I will always keep a list of links to my work at NewEpicurean.com and EpicurusToday.com.

(2) At the same time that I reduce Facebook interaction, I will increase my involvement in platforms under the control of myself and my friends which focus directly on promotion of Epicurean philosophy. I believe that EpicureanFriends.com is now mature enough to serve as my primary platform for detailed philosophical discussion and cooperative projects. Traditional forum software such as is used there allows posts to be organized by topic and referenced for years to come. I have always wanted to devote my time primarily to working with friends on a common goal, and the traditional forum format at EpicureanFriends.com allows for that kind of ongoing and productive community.

(3) In addition to Epicureanfriends.com, I believe it is long past time to take advantage of newer technologies that allow us to interact personally by text, voice, and video conference, such as the Epicurean group at DiscordApp.com, and through use of Skype and/or Google Hangouts. There has never been much evidence for “Epicurean communities” in the ancient world, and there are not likely to be any such living arrangements in the near future. If Epicurean friends are to work together we have to take advantage of the internet to work together when we cannot get together in person. I will make a point of working with others her to set up a text/voice/video conference every Twentieth, at the very least, as requested by Epicurus himself. But much more regularly than that I want to take advantage of DiscordApp.com and Skype to speak with live fellow Epicureans at least once a week, if not nightly. It should be very easy to set up a time of day / day of week, in addition to the 20th of each month, for personal interaction. I will be working on a schedule for that.

(4) Like many others here, I also want personal “live” interaction with like-minded Epicureans. To those who point out that there are no Epicureans with whom to socialize, there is only one answer: We must work to educate and create them. I see that effort as including a life conference, probably on a Saturday at some central location, where we can have Epicurean activists make presentations on their areas of interest and expertise. But more than that, I think we can use Meetup to allow us to network with people who are interested in philosophy. With sufficient motivation and effort it is possible to create small local groups that meet regularly, as now exists in Australia and Greece. There is no reason that their success cannot be duplicated in almost any locality.

(5) There is one more important element missing from the current situation that will be essential to making the above goals workable. To date, those of us who have been promoting Epicurean philosophy have written much, but done little to address the confusion and ambiguity that surrounds what Epicurean philosophy is really about. Relating that only to myself, I very much question whether it is really productive to simply discuss philosophy on a random basis with all comers who ask questions. I don't think it is possible to judge the productiveness of discussion without first taking a stand on what those discussions should be about: In other words, what core aspects of Epicurean philosophy must be defended and promoted at the expense of leaving behind those who disagree. It is very clear that there is wide disagreement in the philosophic community as to what Epicurus really taught. The majority of academics, and therefore the majority of casual observers on the internet, have come to believe what I think are some very damaging and inaccurate ideas, a few of which are:

(A) that Epicurus was a “Tranquilist,”

(B) that Epicurus held that some types of pleasure (“katastematic”) are more important than others;

(C) that Epicurus taught that “ataraxia” is the goal of life, with no need to translate that word into any other language, or define in any other language what it really means;

(D) that Epicurus was an “atheist,” and that his explanation of divinity was a thinly-disguised ruse to protect himself from suffering the persecution of Socrates; all of which is wrapped up in a general conclusion that Epicurus was a Stoic who liked to play with words, and who came up with some useful phrases, but who is nothing but a warm-up to the later Stoic philosophers who really hold the key to proper living.

As anyone who has read my posts knows, I reject all of those characterizations of Epicurus. I do not believe that any effort to promote Epicurus which does not address and refute these contentions is doomed to failure. I myself was generally aware of these accusations about Epicurus since college, and they kept me from reading further, as I believed then, and believe now, that those positions on life are transparently false. It was only when I began to read the work of Norman DeWitt and see that these contentions were not necessarily so, and that in many respects Epicurus taught the reverse of what was said about him, that I began to grasp what I think is the real significance of Epicurus.

So as I proceed with the goals I have listed as one through five above, I will at the same time proceed with distilling these issues down to bullet point form, and use them for the development of a “curriculum” or “discussion guide” for use in the anticipated Meetup get-togethers. I will be posting about this online, and I will appreciate the assistance of anyone who is willing to contribute. But Epicurean philosophy is not a hierarchical organization, and I don’t expect anyone to “follow” me any more than I would agree to follow anyone else. I will share the material that I create, and if it is useful to others, then they will be welcome to use that material themselves, and I will be happy to collaborate with them in making the material and the structure better. It is possible that I will be able to do this in association with the “Society of Epicurus” umbrella, but that may not be the case. I will post about any structure that is needed beyond the Society of Epicurus, if any, on the existing NewEpicurean.com page, and at EpicureanFriends.com.

Again, I very much appreciate all the friendship I have found at Facebook, and the collaboration of the last several years has been very worthwhile for me. But times change, and the days grow shorter for all of us. The only thing that certainly lies ahead of us is death, and the only thing we can do to live our lives successfully is to fill them with as much pleasure and as little pain as possible. It's therefore necessary to constantly reevaluate how best to use our time, and that's what I am doing now. While it may not be at Facebook, I look forward to working with all of you toward more successful promotion of Epicurean philosophy in 2018.

- Cassius

Yes now we are getting to the point. When you say: "in relation to human nature it is accidental because human nature can be imagined without it" that may be a technical philosophical definition (I don't know; would be interested if you have a cite) but that definition is totally divorced from the real world of ordinary people have speak of "accidental" as involving fortuity. And it is in the real world of ordinary people that I want to talk about Epicurus' philosophy to people who need it.

So to restate when you say: "Word may be at first glance misguiding but it is used to denominate in english aristotle distinction between essential and accidental properties." I would reply that you may indeed be right in the academic classrooms - I don't know - but I (don't want this to sound harsh) but have very little interest in their technical word games when it serves to confuse the general public.

Maciej as always thank you for discussing this with me as always, because this is exactly the point I wanted to pin down. I want to be accurate in discussing these things, and I know that "accurate for the technicians" may not be the same as "accurate for the general public." When the academic translators want to use a word a certain way I don't need to make a judgment as to whether their intention is fair or foul, but when I want to talk to real-world people about issues they should understand, I want to use whatever words will lead to accurate understanding. And in this case fortuity I would contend is the furthest thing from Epicurus' mind in describing how the atoms come together so as to emerge into the real world - the "shores of light."

Brett Wheat shared his first post.

Hi all

I've been thinking about philosophy as therapy and reflecting on how easily I can use Stoicism to overcome mental anxiety (what I can control, what I can't, etc.).

Let's say you are under a significant amount of pressure to perform well at work. What sort of process do you utilize to analyze and mitigate the stress using Epicureanism?

Thanks,

Brett

AlexR: Overcoming anxiety?

And by anxiety we mean:

1. Fear of the consequences of anticipated future events and occurrences on our life, health and happiness?

2. Fear of a future we will not be able to avoid?

3. Fear that our visions and dreams of our future are prophetic and/or destined?

4. Fear that our future performance may be very different from our successful past?

5. Fear that the future misfortune will exhaust the resources/friendships we have prudently saved away and maintained?

6. Fear that our employer may decide to break the agreed upon contract?

7. Fear that perfect justice may arrive to cash in our past lack of: friendship prudence, honesty, and fairness?

8. Fear that we won't be able to find another way to satisfy our natural and necessary desires and enjoy life, if we fail?

9. Fear of what we may suffer while we are dead?

10. Fear that the task requested, to be performed, is not realizable?

11. ???

If I'm the right track then Epicurus' three letters and his PDs and VSs combined with Torquatus' Defense and Diogenes' Inscription are full of good advice, that we can spell out in comments below.

Brett Wheat 6 and 10 mostly. Thanks Alexander.

Nathan Bartman

"[I]f men do not set bounds to their terror, they endure as much or even more intense anxiety than the man whose views on these matters are quite vague. But mental tranquillity means being released from all these troubles and cherishing a continual remembrance of the highest and most important truths. Hence we must attend to present feelings and sense perceptions [...] For by studying them we shall rightly trace to its cause and banish the source of disturbance and dread" (Letter To Herodotus).

Brett Wheat

Thanks Nathan. I guess I’m looking for the simple strategies that folks use to deal with stress and anxieties. I know that food and clothing is a necessary and natural good. Having a good job seems to help procure those things. When things at work are overwhelming, how can I manage the feeling of being overwhelmed? With stoicism I might parse out what I can control, what I can’t, and then resign myself to the fate of what happens. Etc. I’m really fascinated by Epicureanism I think I’m just trying to wrap my head around how to manage my every day issues with the philosophy. Thanks for the advice

Alexander Rios:

Epicureans:

1. enumerate the details and constraints (limits) of our desires/goals and our anticipations of success

2. enumerate our anticipations of how we may fail

3. plan and schedule to succeed

4. proceed through the plan's steps, with actions/interactions, while observing the incoming evidence of our progress

5. adjust our plan, pace, desires and anticipations according to how "on track" we feel, and how successful we've been in the past too.

The steps/actions of the plan can be analogical to others we have encountered in the past, or have seen others use.

This is also known as "navigating life" (or sailing a ship on rough waters).

Practical. Prudent.

Imagine there is a maze of forest and obstacles between you and your final desired destination, and you will find yourself doing all of the above.

Brett Wheat

Ahh. That makes a lot of sense Alexander. I’ll need to ponder that but thank you

Could you talk a little more about “limits of desires”? I’m not 100 on what that means?

Alexander Rios

The constraints (limits, boundaries) on your work assignment (goal), that you desire to complete/achieve.

Brett Wheat

Got it! Things that constrain our desires/goals. Thank you

Cassius Amicus

Here are my thoughts, especially now that Brett has clarified his question by pointing to Alex's 6 and 10, and his comments in response to Nathan:

Items 6 and 10 are not facts of nature like death, or the non-existence of supernatural gods, or the existence of pleasure and pain. Whether you will be fired from your job, and whether you assignment is realizable, are mostly controlled by the individual circumstances, choices, and avoidances that each individual has made up to the point of raising this question. Yes, death might intervene, so there are natural limits, but mostly these are questions for the individuals in those circumstances to weigh and balance and act accordingly. That is where references Brett has made in the rest of the question about "resign myself to the fate of what happens" indicates a Stoic mindset that I believe to be deadly to proper resolution of ANY questions. There is NO "Fate" in the sense implied, and using as a reference "what you can control" and "what you can't" is a useless word game of ambiguity. Can you control the weather? Maybe not, but you can go inside if it is raining. Can you control your employer/company? Maybe not, but you can quit. Can you control that you have to pay rent? Maybe not, but you can move to a cheaper apartment. All of these can be debated endlessly "That's not reasonable for me!!" and that entire analysis is a dead end.

The only proper analysis is that pointed to by Epicurus: What will happen to me if I make this choice? Will it lead to pleasurable or painful living? Sure there are drugs and mental techniques (meditation, incense, whatever you choose) that can be used to strengthen or focus the mind, just like exercise of the body. But if a person is confused as to the meaning of life and thinking that fate controls him or her, then they are hopelessly off base at the start and mind-control techniques just ensure that the confusion is locked in.

Bret I don't mean this to come across as harsh, but rather the point out that unlike modern stoicism, Epicurean philosophy is not a bandaid or anesthesia, but a call to everyone to wake up to the truth about their circumstances and their true goals in life, and to act accordingly and within their power.

Cassius Amicus

As to limits of desires that is a perfect question for the PD21 that I was just rereading: "21. He who has learned the limits of life knows that that which removes the pain due to want and makes the whole of life complete is easy to obtain, so that there is no need of actions which involve competition."

The limits of life include the fact that we die and do not live again; that there are no gods to protect us or punish us or tell us what to do, and that pleasure and pain are the only guides given us by nature to decide what to choose and what to avoid. I would suggest to you that rather than being mysterious by the phrase "that which removes the pain due to want and makes the whole of life complete" is really nothing more than a stand-in for the word "pleasure." I suggest that this phrase is used in part because it is impossible to enumerate all the individual types of pleasure which can compose a full life: in other words there is no single class or category of pleasures which alone make a life complete. One can be an astronaut and fly to the moon and have a complete life, or one can be a dirt farmer and raise a family and live close to the land, enjoying it completely, and equally live a full live. Filling our life with pleasures does not require gold and riches -- they are fine if they can be obtained easily, but most people do not live under those circumstances, and they find that living "simply" and valuing those things which are close at hand produce a full life without the need of fighting ('competition") that outweighs the value of what is gained.

Brett Wheat

You have not come across harsh at all. I need to digest this all a bit and I’ll come back with a fuller response and probably more questions...

Thank you sincerely for the time it took to reply and the thought you put into your response

Brendan Engen

I’m a psychologist and have found that Epicurean atomistic materialism can, for certain individuals, be a good cognitive remedy for OCD-related contamination phobias.

Cassius Amicus

Thank you for that comment Brendan. While you are directing it to OCD-related contamination phobias, it strikes me that in a very real sense the implications of this analogy go far beyond phobias and extend to the heart of *many* of the issues that Epicurus was attempting to address.

Alexander Rios So yeah. Interesting. The standard model of physics is 16 kinds of interacting particles in motion through space and time. So we and everything are made of, and interact via the same stuff. And some OCD people are relieved of unhealthy fears because of that. Interesting.

Brett Wheat

I feel like I’m rediscovering Epicureanism for the first time with this thread. I think I’ve never really understood the application of the principles. It’s all very exciting. I’m still digesting the application to my specific circumstances but it’s very promising. I really value the conversation and am sure Epicurus would be proud of it.

Cassius Amicus

Brett in my view the biggest challenge that modern Epicureans have is throwing off the misconceptions that predominate in most of what has been written about Epicurus in the last 100 years (and much before). If you have not gotten the Norman Dewitt book I highly recommend it.

Brett Wheat Thanks Cassius. I’ve added to my list

Cassius Amicus

Brett I can't remember how "into" this you are, but in case you are into this as a teacher of some kind, it comes to mind to say that after DeWitt, there is a lot to be learned from Gosling & Taylor's "The Greeks on Pleasure." This traces the history of the arguments about Pleasure in ancient Greece, and helps put Epicurus' arguments in perspective, especially as to the "Limits" question you asked. There were very important but technical reasons why "limits" were an issue in Epicurus' time, and IMO it's not possible to appreciate Epicurus' arguments without understanding why the issue of limits is important. People tend to infer that when Epicurus referred to limits he was only saying "live simply" but we know from texts such as VS63 (There is also a limit in simple living, and he who fails to understand this falls into an error as great as that of the man who gives way to extravagance) that this was not the case.

Plato and others had argued that pleasure cannot be the goal of life because pleasure has no limit, and therefore from a logical argument perspective we can always improve pleasure by adding more things to it. Thus pleasure itself is not the goal of life and we must look to something else.) To defeat that logical argument, it is useful to point out that pleasure in life DOES have a limit - the "full cup" analogy where the life is filled with pleasure, and all pain has been driven out. The limit of pleasure is set by a lifetime - no one can experience more pleasure than his/her definite lifespan. Pointing out that a full lifetime of pleasure is the most than any living being can hope to achieve shows us that there is a "limit of pleasure" which can serve as our concrete goal of life. This fits hand and glove with the context that there are no supernatural gods to direct our lives, and no expectation of life after death in which we might have other considerations higher than how to live *this* life.

These limits arguments may strike some as unnecessarily academic and egg-headed, but the philosophical arguments against pleasure as the goal of life were well developed and well known in Epicurus' world. He had to meet and defeat them, so it should be no surprise that after he disposed of the gods in PD1 and death in PD2, he disposed of the major argument against pleasure as the goal of life in PD3 and in the other doctrines that discuss limits.

(Clarification: Gosling & Taylor only AFTER DeWitt. DeWitt is the key to seeing the forest instead of the trees.)

I don't think I have seen this article linked here before, but it's a pretty good one, ending with this summary which is a lot better than most: "Do not fall into quietism or fatalism; seek happiness with a zeal – in friendships and long conversations, in the pleasures nature has provided us, in the fruits of our reason and imagination, and in the avoidance of vain ambitions for power over others."

https://fee.org/articles/what-…-and-happiness/

RW: would have expected a comment on his statement of "...the ultimate pleasure being the absence of bodily pain and tranquility of the mind."

Like
· Reply · 1
· 6 hrs
Manage

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin You are right Ron I am slipping! Thank you for noticing as that does seriously undercut the article for me! I guess my expectations are sliding, and I was satisfied simply that the author got the picture of Epicurus right, and didn't confuse him with Epictetus!

The writer implicitly acknowledges that (on the surface) the apparent meaning of this is a contradiction, by beginning his next sentence with "Nevertheless" -- "Nevertheless, because Epicurus claimed the ultimate aim of happiness is to find pleasure – and not virtue or knowledge unto themselves – many of his contemporaries and later critics would uncharitably accuse him of advocating debauchery, one even saying he “vomited twice a day from over-indulgence,” and that his understanding of philosophy and life in general was wanting."

What he doesn't do, and what is left to people who are really devoted enough to the issue, is to dig out why "absence of pain" does not conflict with "pleasure" as the ultimate goal.

The writer is content to leave the issue at the level of (my take) "just another idiosyncrasy of those weird philosophers - never can take everything they say - have to pick and choose." And so he doesn't explore the meaning of pleasure of the doctrine that pleasure and pain are the only two feelings (which is the reason that in measuring any feeling, absence of one equals the presence of the other).

At this stage of the game I suppose I am happy when someone is able to look past the obvious problem with this common confusion over "absence of pain" and still write about Epicurus anyway. Especially to say ""Do not fall into quietism or fatalism; seek happiness with a zeal."

For me, if I were an "outsider" and came across Epicurus and the "highest good is the absence of pain" contention, that would be the first and last time I would devote any effort to him. I think that happens a lot, and turns a lot of good people off - and that it happens that those particular good people, who are looking for justification of the pursuit of happiness - are exactly the people we should want to appreciate Epicurus the most!

Like
· Reply · 12 mins
Manage

Cassius Amicus My last comment to Ron is worth repeating: The reason I harp on the "absence of pain" issue is that the modern majority interpretation of "absence of pain" is going to turn off exactly the people who are most naturally Epicureans, and turn them away from Epicurus. This modern non-pleasure-based interpretation makes no effort to explain what this state of "absence of pain" really is, because it makes no sense and contradicts many other clear statements made by Epicurus.

At the same time, the modern majority position it is going to attract those who are most naturally Stoic, and who are constitutionally unsuited for Epicurean philosophy due to their antipathy to normal pleasures. That is one of the primary reasons I think Epicurus has languished in the shadows while the people who are most naturally Epicurean, but who don't have access to a coherent explanation of this issue, turn in disappointment in some other direction.

This confusion wastes the time of the Stoics, deflates and depresses Epicureans, and serves no purpose other than to fuel the fire of those who like to debate for the sake of debate, and to protect the preserve of the academics who claim that only they can truly understand Epicurus.

I think we probably are not on the same topic, agreed. The issue is that I think is of concern is when it might be proper to use terms like accidental, which imply fortuity, to combinations of atoms into bodies, and it seems to me that those circumstances would be extremely rare, given that the changes in bodies also operate according to the movements of the combinations of atoms of which they are part. Words implying events and symptoms in normal speaking imply causation and natural relationships, while words implying accident and fortuity imply breaking of exactly those expectations. I think that Epicurus would have wanted to stress that while slavery is not a permanent attribute it most certainly is not "accidental" either, but rather a result of a sequence of events that was not initiated either by gods or by chaos. To observe that some attributes of human life are changeable is not particularly useful unless one is looking to draw conclusions about the nature of that change, i.e. was the change caused by gods? Was it totally chaotic? If either of those alternatives is true, then successful happy living by studying nature is impossible.

Alexander RiosGroup Admin But doesn't the word "event" includes all accidents, incidents and all intentional coincidents. Every collision, every emission, and every absorption and every beginning or end of a interlacing is an event. Agreed?


And of course they have context.

What is special about "contextident"?

Like
· Reply · 19 mins · Edited
Manage

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin Yes definitely agreed. But the point I think is significant here is that "events" and "symptoms" clearly are words of logical / natural ***connection** which we can investigate and predict through science, as against "accident" which implies randomness and unpredictability.

Like
· Reply · 19 mins
Manage

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin In other words, the reason I think this is significant is that Epicurus is saying that the atoms provide us predictability and natural explanations for what we see. They do that through their "properties," which are eternal and unchangeeable, and through their qualities, which do change according to circumstance, but which change in logical / natural / predictable ways that are wrapped up in their circumstances. Atomic theory therefor allows for science to explore and understand phenomena. What I am rejecting is the use of terms like "accidental" which implies that the things around us are determined "accidentally" or "randomly" or "without explanation" which would make science impossible.

Like
· Reply · 16 mins
Manage

Alexander RiosGroup Admin Determined randomly????

That makes zero sense.


That means not determined.

Like
· Reply · 14 mins
Manage

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin Correct. That is what I meant. It would make no sense to say that qualities are detemined randomly, and yet that is what the term "accidentally" implies. I am suggesting that Balley and the others who use accidentally are spoling the philosophical point. They are not commenting here on swerves of the atom, they are implying that colors and things we see contextually are RANDOM, which they certainly are not.

Like
· Reply · 13 mins
Manage

Write a reply...

Alexander RiosGroup Admin Yeah. So what? At this level of few particles and few interactions we're not applying statistics. And we know that the trajectories depend both on properties (deterministic) and swerve (indeterministic) which is not predictable (modeled by chaos).

Like
· Reply · 14 mins · Edited
Manage

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin The "so what" is that at the observable level (which is where qualities ocur) the qualities ARE predictable and understandable (if we have the tools and experience and knowledge to dig deep enough)

Like
· Reply · 1
· 14 mins
Manage

Hide 12 Replies

Alexander RiosGroup Admin Of course. Because at the body/quality level we are applying statistics and averages. Too many particles to count and keep track of.

Like
· Reply · 12 mins · Edited
Manage

Alexander RiosGroup Admin Sounds to me like you are denying the swerve of individual particles.

Like
· Reply · 12 mins
Manage

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin No! But I am suggesting that Balley and the others who use accidentally are spoiling the philosophical point. They are not commenting here on swerves of the atom, they are implying that colors and things we see contextually are RANDOM, which they certainly are not.

Like
· Reply · 1
· 11 mins
Manage

Alexander RiosGroup Admin Only when we have huge populations of particles is it that the swerve of each washes out, for the body, and applying averages makes sense, and the body/system becomes more deterministic.

Like
· Reply · 10 mins · Edited
Manage

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin Right! And that higher level is exactly the level that Epicurus is talking about, because it is at that level that humans see and feel and hear and taste and touch etc...

Like
· Reply · 1
· 9 mins
Manage

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin At the level of color and weight as humans measure it, we are talking about huge populations of particles, and at this level, the color and other qualities that we observe flow scientifically / chemically / etc from the order and arrangement and placement etc of the atoms

Like
· Reply · 7 mins
Manage

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin If what we see and touch and here were "random" or "accidents' then we could knew predict from one moment to the next what color an orange might appear to us on the tree

Like
· Reply · 7 mins
Manage

Alexander RiosGroup Admin Ok. That is mostly true. But the swerve is not 100% washed out. Because bodies are made of parts, and some of those parts are like islands, isolated from the mob of particles, and to those the swerve still plays a non-ignorable role.

Like
· Reply · 6 mins · Edited
Manage

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin RIght. I am in no way attacking the swerve itself. I am saying that properties and qualities are the two major steps up from atoms to our real world in which we experience things, and that at our real level world the swerve does not ordinarily come ...See More

Like
· Reply · 1
· 4 mins
Manage

Alexander RiosGroup Admin In a city each person moves at their own will. Yet when we consider the whole population, we can apply averages and predict, deterministically, and be right in our predictions more often then not.

Like
· Reply · 1
· 4 mins
Manage

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin Yes I completely agree with the individual vs city population analogy. To sort of return full circle to the original point, the strength of Epicurean philosophy in replying to religion is that we have a predictable science of nature which is based on atoms/particles which have natures which allow us to explain nature, through science, and show that nature does not rely on Gods to direct her. If we had no predictable mechanism, we would not succeed in convincing people that we had a viable theory. To suggest that an important step in the process is "accidental" is to break the chain of causation that makes the system work. That is no concern to Bailey and many other translators who are theists and anti-Epicurean, but it should be of great concern to us to maintain the integrity of the Epicurean system.,

Like
· Reply · 1 min
Manage

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin Thank you Alex for continuing to talk about this because I want to be sure I am not overstating or understating the issue. I want to incorporate the swerve and properties and qualities into a coherent whole that makes the system understandable.

Like
· Reply · Just now

Manage Alexander RiosGroup Admin The chain of causation cannot ignore the swerve when the population count is small. Or has isolated islands of paricled. Only when the population of particles is "too large to count" does it "wash out" so that the population's model is "in effect" modelled effective ly by a deterministic system. Like  · Reply · 1  · 9 mins · Edited Manage Cassius AmicusGroup Admin I think that is a very valid point, but at the qualitative level at which humans observe the world around us, the number of particles are too large to count, do you not agree? Is not science based on the reproducibllity of experimentation that produces same results under same circumstances? I understand that does not apply at the subatomic level in all cases, but it does apply at the macro level we see and touch and feel with our natural senses, correct? Like  · Reply · 8 mins Manage Cassius AmicusGroup Admin In other words if we are at home and we take an icecube from our refrigerator, and apply a blowtorch to it, EVERY TIME that ice cube is going to melt, regardless of the fact that the swerve of atoms also exists. Like  · Reply · 1  · 6 mins Manage Cassius AmicusGroup Admin And if we set our freezers to cool down to 32 degrees Fahrenheit, EVERY TIME our water-filled cube holders are going to freeze and produce ice, again regardless of the fact that atoms continue to swerve at the same time. The point being once again that at the macro level at which we live, we do not rely on gods nor do we throw up our hands in helplessness against accidental chaos , but we build our lives on an understanding of the universe based on atomic science built on the macro understandable properties of atoms and the qualities of the bodies that atoms form when they come together. Like  · Reply · 1 min · Edited Manage Alexander RiosGroup Admin Yes. The physical models that we use for everyday human scale, phenomena is usually deterministic. Classical physics can be derived from quantum physics when the count of particles in the population of the bodies is very large. Like  · Reply · 1  · Just now Manage Cassius AmicusGroup Admin And there I think we can rest for the night - i better turn in - thanks!

And indeed it appears that I see symptomata again:

The translation "accidents" also appears just before the discussion of time begins on line 72, so the area to look at for that should be here:

Once again Maciej thank you! Is symptomata the only word being translated as "accident," or do you see others? I note the explanation of symptomata on this page: https://glosbe.com/el/en/%CF%83%C…%B1%CF%84%CE%B1

I am definitely going to have to ask for help from friends with Greek experience ... It looks like line 70 is key, and do the asterisks indicate missing text and/or other aspects of interpolation of what the text is really saying here? [Furthermore, there often happens to bodies and yet do not permanently accompany them (accidents, of which we must suppose....)

Here it is in side-by-side English/Greek from Bailey: https://archive.org/stream/Epicuru…ge/n41/mode/2up

Maciej do you know the greek term which is used in these passages? I will have to refer to my Bailey edition.

I don't have the page reference but I think you are probably referring to this part, in the translation at Epicurus.net, where it appears there is no mention of the qualities being "accidental":

Moreover, we must hold that the atoms in fact possess none of the qualities belonging to things which come under our observation, except shape, weight, and size, and the properties necessarily conjoined with shape. For every quality changes, but the atoms do not change, since, when the composite bodies are dissolved, there must needs be a permanent something, solid and indissoluble, left behind, which makes change possible: not changes into or from the non-existent. but often through differences of arrangement, and sometimes through additions and subtractions of the atoms. Hence these somethings capable of being diversely arranged must be indestructible, exempt from change, but possessed each of its own distinctive mass and configuration. This must remain.

For in the case of changes of configuration within our experience the figure is supposed to be inherent when other qualities are stripped of, but the qualities are not supposed, like the shape which is left behind, to inhere in the subject of change, but to vanish altogether from the body. Thus, then, what is left behind is sufficient to account for the differences in composite bodies, since something at least must necessarily be left remaining and be immune from annihilation.

Yes I am flipping between calypso and Mavira myself, but I am also getting use to Black Swan and find myself preferring it.

I selected Mavira in the poll just to test if the polling result looked. I tend to think that "material" design probably appeals to most people, but I could be wrong. Let us know your thoughts and help us test the polling option.

The theme / style of the forum can easily be changed by selecting "Style" at the bottom right of the page (while on a computer; probably not on a cell phone). So this question is not "What style do you like best?" but "What style do you think appeals to the most people to keep them hooked on their first visit?" And this post is also a test of the "poll" feature - let us know what you think!

Notes:

(1) Several of the styles, including Lotus, Norvip, Black Swan, Modern Flat, and each of the Pixel choices, keep the navigation bar and status icons in a bar at the top of the page even as you scroll downward - that's a handy feature that the default Mavira doesn't have.

(2) Actually my current favorite may be "Modern Flat" which isn't to light, isn't too dark, but is somewhere in the between.

Welcome Maciej ! If I remember correctly (and I think I do!) you are a longtime friend of Epicurus and it is very good to see that you are still alive and kicking! When you get a chance please say hello either publicly or privately!

Thank you Eric! I plan to set up and join all three as soon as I can!

https://www.minds.com/cassiusamicus

https://gab.ai/Cassiusamicus

I would definitely like to see your links on both places Eric, so please post them or message them. I know that the free speech sites tend to attract the radicals, but I would at least like to have a presence on any sites that might potentially have people who are interested in philosophical foundations.