Posts by Cassius

Welcome to Episode 237 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com.

For our new listeners, let me remind you of several ground rules for both our podcast and our forum.

First: Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it.

Second: We won't be talking about modern political issues in this podcast. How you apply Epicurus in your own life is of course entirely up to you. We call this approach "Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean." Epicurean philosophy is a philosophy of its own, it's not the same as Stoicism, Humanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism, Libertarianism or Marxism - it is unique and must be understood on its own, not in terms of any conventional modern morality.

Third: One of the most important things to keep in mind is that the Epicureans often used words very differently than we do today. To the Epicureans, Gods were not omnipotent or omniscient, so Epicurean references to "Gods" do not mean at all the same thing as in major religions today. In the Epicurean theory of knowledge, all sensations are true, but that does not mean all opinions are true, but that the raw data reported by the senses is reported without the injection of opinion, as the opinion-making process takes place in the mind, where it is subject to mistakes, rather than in the senses. In Epicurean ethics, "Pleasure" refers not ONLY to sensory stimulation, but also to every experience of life which is not felt to be painful. The classical texts show that Epicurus was not focused on luxury, like some people say, but neither did he teach minimalism, as other people say. Epicurus taught that all experiences of life fall under one of two feelings - pleasure and pain - and those feelings -- and not gods, idealism, or virtue - are the guides that Nature gave us by which to live. More than anything else, Epicurus taught that the universe is not supernatural in any way, and that means there's no life after death, and any happiness we'll ever have comes in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.

Today we are continuing to review the Epicurean sections of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," as presented by the Epicurean spokesman Velleius. We will continue with Section 18 and begin moving into 19.

For the main text we are using primarily the Yonge translation, available here at Archive.org. The text which we include in these posts is available here. We will also refer to the public domain version of the Loeb series, which contains both Latin and English, as translated by H. Rackham.

Additional versions can be found here:

• Frances Brooks 1896 translation at Online Library of Liberty
• Lacus Curtius Edition (Rackham)
• PDF Of Loeb Edition at Archive.org by Rackham
• Gutenberg.org version by CD Yonge 

A list of arguments presented will eventually be put together here.

Today's Text

XIX. Surely the mighty power of the Infinite Being is most worthy our great and earnest contemplation; the nature of which we must necessarily understand to be such that everything in it is made to correspond completely to some other answering part. This is called by Epicurus ἰσονομία; that is to say, an equal distribution or even disposition of things. From hence he draws this inference, that, as there is such a vast multitude of mortals, there cannot be a less number of immortals; and if those which perish are innumerable, those which are preserved ought also to be countless. Your sect, Balbus, frequently ask us how the Gods live, and how they pass their time? Their life is the most happy, and the most abounding with all kinds of blessings, which can be conceived. They do nothing. They are embarrassed with no business; nor do they perform any work. They rejoice in the possession of their own wisdom and virtue. They are satisfied that they shall ever enjoy the fulness of eternal pleasures.

XX. Such a Deity may properly be called happy; but yours is a most laborious God. For let us suppose the world a Deity—what can be a more uneasy state than, without the least cessation, to be whirled about the axle-tree of heaven with a surprising celerity? But nothing can be happy that is not at ease. Or let us suppose a Deity residing in the world, who directs and governs it, who preserves the courses of the stars, the changes of the seasons, and the vicissitudes and orders of things, surveying the earth and the sea, and accommodating them to the advantage and necessities of man. Truly this Deity is embarrassed with a very troublesome and laborious office. We make a happy life to consist in a tranquillity of mind, a perfect freedom from care, and an exemption from all employment. The philosopher from whom we received all our knowledge has taught us that the world was made by nature; that there was no occasion for a workhouse to frame it in; and that, though you deny the possibility of such a work without divine skill, it is so easy to her, that she has made, does make, and will make innumerable worlds. But, because you do not conceive that nature is able to produce such effects without some rational aid, you are forced, like the tragic poets, when you cannot wind up your argument in any other way, to have recourse to a Deity, whose assistance you would not seek, if you could view that vast and unbounded magnitude of regions in all parts; where the mind, extending and spreading itself, travels so far and wide that it can find no end, no extremity to stop at. In this immensity of breadth, length, and height, a most boundless company of innumerable atoms are fluttering about, which, notwithstanding the interposition of a void space, meet and cohere, and continue clinging to one another; and by this union these modifications and forms of things arise, which, in your opinions, could not possibly be made without the help of bellows and anvils. Thus you have imposed on us an eternal master, whom we must dread day and night. For who can be free from fear of a Deity who foresees, regards, and takes notice of everything; one who thinks all things his own; a curious, ever-busy God?

Hence first arose your Εἱμαρμένη, as you call it, your fatal necessity; so that, whatever happens, you affirm that it flows from an eternal chain and continuance of causes. Of what value is this philosophy, which, like old women and illiterate men, attributes everything to fate? Then follows your μαντικὴ, in Latin called divinatio, divination; which, if we would listen to you, would plunge us into such superstition that we should fall down and worship your inspectors into sacrifices, your augurs, your soothsayers, your prophets, and your fortune-tellers.

Epicurus having freed us from these terrors and restored us to liberty, we have no dread of those beings whom we have reason to think entirely free from all trouble themselves, and who do not impose any on others. We pay our adoration, indeed, with piety and reverence to that essence which is above all excellence and perfection. But I fear my zeal for this doctrine has made me too prolix. However, I could not easily leave so eminent and important a subject unfinished, though I must confess I should rather endeavor to hear than speak so long.

Great topic Cleveland Oakie. It's very interesting to look into the meaning of the Latin "posse commitatus." We in the USA don't generally seem to associate the term with anything other than our law which prohibits the use of military troops from getting involved in civil matters, but your example implies there is a lot more going on than that!

I see this also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_comitatus

Quote

The posse comitatus (from the Latin for "power of the county"), frequently shortened to posse, is in common law a group of people mobilized by the conservator of peace – typically a reeve, sheriff, chief, or another special/regional designee like an officer of the peace potentially accompanied by or with the direction of a justice or ajudged parajudicial process given the imminence of actual damage – to suppress lawlessness, defend the people, or otherwise protect the place, property, and public welfare.

...

Derived from Latin, posse comitātūs ("force of the county/region") is sometimes shortened to simply posse from the mid-17th century onward to describe the force itself more than the legal principle.^[3] While the original meaning refers to a group of citizens assembled by the authorities to deal with an emergency (such as suppressing a riot or pursuing felons and outlawry), the term is also used for any force or band, especially with hostile intent, often also figuratively or humorously.^[4] In 19th-century usage, posse comitatus also acquired the generalized or figurative meaning.^[5] In classical Latin, posse is a contraction of potesse, an irregular Latin verb meaning "to be able".^[6][7][8] The unusual genitive in "-ūs" is a feature of the fourth declension. In its earliest days, the posse comitatus was subordinate to the king, country, and local authority.^[9]

Sound to me like translating it as "county" is probably covering over a deeper meaning that goes in the direction of what Cleveland is finding.

Quote from Godfrey

It seems to have some potential overlap with pattern recognition, although some (such as Wundt) think of it as a conscious process. I'm not sure if it's helpful or not to examine the word further, but it does seem to at least have some of the same issues as prolepsis in terms of pinning down a definition.

Very good information, Godrey, so this is going to cry out for our Greek scholars to examine that word and help us figure out how it was used elsewhere, and potentially how it was translated into Latin.

Maybe this thread "Give Us An Example of A God!" should come after examination of "Give Us An Example of A Prolepsis!"

And I think the straightest path to that is going to be to analogize to the eye and the other faculties. In the case of the eye, according to this article the eye receives and processes into a form the brain can handle - in a single word - "light":

Visual system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(Note: By quoting WIkipedia I am not suggesting that anything was required from modern science that wouldn't basically have occurred to Epicurus. It's an obvious question to ask what part of thinking takes place in the eye and what part takes place in the brain/soul/mind whatever. Also,I am following up on the prior comment that the eye probably doesn't even distinguish borders between separate "things." Picking out one "thing" from another presumably takes place in the brain too.)

Presumably the ears receive and process "sound" into a form the brain can handle. (And it is the mind that can pick music out of background noise.)

So what does the prolepsis faculty receive and process into a form the brain can handle?

I would bet Epicurus would say that it does *not* receive and process "gods" or "justice" or "oxen" or any concrete "thing" or "concept." I suspect he would say that those words ("gods" Justice" and "oxen") are concepts that the mind has formed because the faculty of prolepsis has done some kind of work *beforehand* to allow the brain to think about these concepts. Had the prolepsis faculty not done it's work beforehand, the brain would never have been able to come up with "gods" or "justice" or "oxen" in the first place. Seeing an infinite number of copies of the Mona Lisa would never tell us to pick out the individual things that go into the Mona Lisa out from the background of the painting, unless some faculty of organization of relationships led us to first pick out "things" like hair and eyes and noses and mouths and trees in the first place. Even a gods could not create a world without something which would have allowed them to think of worlds in the first place. (Note that I am writing that carefully because maybe a "god" could take existing matter and refashion it into a "world," but no god could ever make something from nothing or make the universe as a whole.)

It's going to be something more fundamental - like repetitive or repeated "relationships" or "arrangements" - or something else that describes why we should recognize that one body has a special relationship to another body. And the receipt of "images" over time, in which bodies repeatedly appear to us in repetitive relationships to each other, would be a prime candidate to consider as what it is that prolepses "receives and processes."

No doubt someone else can do a lot better than that, but I think that's the direction, and so long as we continue to discuss "concepts" as what prolepsis is receiving and handing over, I don't think we make progress toward giving due credit to either the faculty of prolepsis or the theory of images.

Diogenes Laertius - it seems like I have read commentators explain this word "apperception" in 32 below as a reference to the "repeatability" of the phenomena. Could it be that the "repeatability" of something makes the most difference in justifying us to consider something to be "real" or "true":

[32] Nor is there anything which can refute the sensations. For a similar sensation cannot refute a similar because it is equivalent in validity, nor a dissimilar a dissimilar, for the objects of which they are the criteria are not the same; nor again can reason, for all reason is dependent upon sensations; nor can one sensation refute another, for we attend to them all alike. Again, the fact of apperception confirms the truth of the sensations. And seeing and hearing are as much facts as feeling pain. From this it follows that as regards the imperceptible we must draw inferences from phenomena. For all thoughts have their origin in sensations by means of coincidence and analogy and similarity and combination, reasoning too contributing something. And the visions of the insane and those in dreams are true, for they cause movement, and that which does not exist cannot cause movement.

[51] For the similarity between the things which exist, which we call real and the images received as a likeness of things and produced either in sleep or through some other acts of apprehension on the part of the mind or the other instruments of judgment, could never be, unless there were some effluences of this nature actually brought into contact with our senses.

In addition I think we still have a lot more to clarify about what "a prolepsis" is. When we say "a prolepsis of ______" something , that something is coming out in our description as a conception, and I don't think that is right.

Prolepsis should lead to formation of concepts but not be concepts themselves, just like eyes never tell us what a thing is, but only give us raw data about color and brightness and sharpness and the like. Possibly even the eyes don't tell us "boundaries" either, of where one "thing" stops and another starts. Maybe "thing" is itself an opinion of the mind after our mind assembles the data from the senses.

On the nature of "things" might itself have multiple meanings.

Quote from Twentier

Let's use the example of "demons" (as a class).

Well, "demons as a class" already sounds like a conceptual construct to me. Blessedness (pleasure) and Imperishability (life) seem to me things that are much more on a level of "sensation." "Gods" would be the conceptual embodiment of those characteristics (blessedness and life/imperishability) in perfected form. "Demons" i guess could be considered conceptual construction like "gods," but I don't think once you start talking about "demons" you are still talking about something that can be a true opinion generated by a prolepsis, just like the existence of centaurs would not be a true opinion, even though they can be generated by "images."

Quote from Twentier

I have experienced a prolepsis of a being "with a permanent lack of pleasure" and I assign to that prolepsis the word "demon", as a class of perfectly-pleasureless beings?

So I think I would first have to unpack that sentence in the same way. "Prolepsis" seems to me to be focusing on "arrangements" but to assign to a particular arrangement a label "a living person who permanently lacks pleasure" probably goes into "false opinion."

Once again I think these are great questions, and I am sure that my answers can be improved. I think these questions do have good answers, I am just not at all sure mine so far are the best that can be given.

Quote from Twentier

How do I know that "the gods" in "dreams" are more real than centaurs and cyclops?

That's a good approach and I bet it has several ways of responding. Both gods and centaurs are "real" from the perspective of affecting us, but gods are "more real" than centaurs if "real" is thought of as meaning that the thing has likely an ongoing physical existence capable of generating its own images on a regular basis. Here are two starting points that will need revision:

- Our observations of the physical universe tells us that "gods" are likely and possible, but that centaurs are not. In the case of gods we are talking about a wide class that could have very many forms, so long as those forms are consistent with blessedness and imperishability. In the case of "centaurs" that's an assertion of a very specific physical formation that conflicts with our long experience with both humans and horses.

- "Gods" as a class are very frequently the topic of our interest (receipt of images), but "centaurs" are very infrequently so. Repeatability / regularity is a major aspect of something being "real." Anything with an independent existence will regularly generate images of their own. Centaurs are combinations of images of men and horses which happen much less frequently.

I would be interested in Bryan 's thoughts on this. But the issue turns on the overriding question of the meaning of "real" and how we consider anything to be real.

Quote from Twentier

Similarly, Epicurus advises against romantic exploits, but stops short of explicitly prohibiting them, so long as they do not cause turmoil.

I think the last phrase there should be "does not cause more pain than pleasure" which would be the general way the analysis applies to all topics. Because although I know that not everyone interprets PD10 this way, I think it is reasonably interpreted to mean that no activity can ever be "blanketly" ruled out because there is no fate and thus no absolute certainty as to result. It seems to me its always a problem to state any rule of conduct in terms of an absolute rule, as that would override the physics and the fact that nature gives us only pleasure and pain as guides.

Quote from Twentier

I wonder, like sex and politics if Epicurus would allow for a non-theistic rejection of the traditional gods if one is so inclined by their natural disposition?

Therefore (after my first comment) I would say that he would "allow" the possibility of such a position, if indeed in a particular case it does lead to a successful result, but he'd "warn against it" as going against general human experience.

Quote from Bryan

Yes, but of course just a little bit remains.

This is excellent work Bryan! I presume this is yours? Can we set up a "Demetrius Lacon" Thread or subforum to include this and the links to papyri from which you are working?

I am thinking a subforum in this section:

Ancient Epicurean Texts (300 BC to 300 AD)

Quote from Twentier

(3) Hermarkhos, Demetrios, Philodemos, and Lucretius making indications that the gods breathe and converse is not a preconception, but inductive reasoning that happens to be coherent with the preconception, and (4) the actual gods don't really exist except as concepts in our minds.

I think Point 3 is correct and applies to Epicurus as well. Preconceptions are never the same as inductive reasoning, and I would say "statements of fact" are always better termed "conceptions," as "statements of fact" are never the same as preconceptions. "Opinions" is another good word, as Epicurus apparently said (Diogenes Laertius?) that opinions can be true or false, but unfortunately today the word "opinion" is firmly understood to imply that the opinion is "not true," so in most cases clarity will require some other word.

As to point 4 I would say the problem is the meaning of the term "the actual gods." If someone insists that the term "actual gods" must include Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Thor, or whoever, then yes I would say the statement "actual gods do not exist except as concepts in our mind" is true, because *those gods* do not exist as independently real beings with bodies and locations and so forth.

However the term "actual gods" by no means requires accepting that Yahweh and the rest are included within that term. Therefore I would submit the statement "the actual gods don't really exist except as concepts in our minds" as that statement would be made in common discussion and understood by 99% of people today would be seen in Epicurean terminology as false.

I would say (as I think you did later in the post) that if Epicurus were here today he would say something like the following, which is what I understand the texts to mean when read fairly. Epicurus would say "divinity" or "god" is a term that humans apply to living beings that meet a certain criteria of total blessedness and total deathlessness, and that this term is applicable to and appropriate to describe beings which our physics and understanding of nature tell us do actually exist in the universe.

The problem always comes when someone makes specific assertions about some personality like Yahweh or Zeus or any of the rest actually existing. It's also a problem to make general assertions about the class of gods that goes beyond deathlessness and blessedness, as none of those assertions have ever proven to be reliable and reproducible and worthy of belief.

Thus it appears that the Epicureans speculated about "quasi-bodies" and "quasi-blood" to acknowledge that we can reasonably believe that the class of "gods" have certain qualities that allow them to exist in the universe, but that we do not have the ability to specify the details of those qualities given our lack of information from our vantage point here on Earth.

Quote from Twentier

This brings up another point: various Epicureans have presented the argument that a Creator cannot be a god because a Creator must have been bored, or lonely, or in need of other beings prior to creation; such a state is inconsistent with blessedness.

Which is why I would expect Epicurus to have emphasized life in the universe along a "spectrum" in which there will be lots of beings lots more advanced than us which *do* create their own "worlds" (but not from nothing), with the status of "god" being reserved for those that have in fact reached the point of wanting nothing that they do not already have.

Quote from Twentier

How can a blessed quasi-animal always have existed?

I tend to think that their answer there would have been that gods "as a kind" have always existed as a part of natural processes leading to that result, but that gods as individuals have not existed forever, given that the only things that have existed without creation are matter and void. This leads down the road DeWitt mentions that the gods have to act to maintain their deathlessness. I suppose it's not inconceivable that individual gods might conclude after eons that variety really does not add to complete pleasure, and decide voluntarily to go out of existence. I wouldn't be surprised if the ancient Epicureans asked themselves that question, at the very least as part of the discussion about beings like us, who will surely die, and questioning how much in fact we necessarily lose by being mortal rather than deathless. Variety is in fact nice to us who haven't learned the lesson, but if we were to in fact experience for ourselves (through technology in the future) how it does not in fact make pleasure "more complete," then I am thinking that it would be conceivable to decide, once we were really sure that we had experienced "complete" pleasure, that nothing more is needed, and to get tired of the "more."

Quote from DeWitt Epicurus and His Philosophy Chapter 7, page 127

Plutarch, who employed part of his leisure in digging up old slurs out of the archives, wrote scornfully: "It was not because Colotes had read 'the heaven-descended Canons' that bread was perceived by him to be bread and fodder fodder." Even after the time of Plutarch the Canon seemed good to the frivolous Alciphron for a joke between two courtesans, the Epicurean Leontion and Lamia, mistress of Demetrius the Besieger: "How long will one have to put up with this philosopher? Let him keep to his books on Physics, to his Authorized Doctrines and his cock-eyed Canons.

The footnote to that last part referencing Alciphron is Ep. 2.2.2 (Loeb 4.17, p.309), where the translator uses "distorted."

That letter can be read in full here: https://archive.org/details/in.ern…ge/308/mode/2up

From the introduction to that volume of Alciphron:

INTRODUCTION

1. GENERAL

Of the prose letters that have come down to us from Greek antiquity a few, like the short letters of Epicurus, are letters in the simple sense of the word ; most are “literary efforts,” some genuine, like the amusing and informative letters of Synesius or the vapourings of Dionysius of Antioch, some forged, hke the letters attributed to Phalaris or to Socrates. ‘Forged ” 1s perhaps a dangerous word to use in some cases, the line between letters forged with intent to deceive and letters forged without such intent 1s often difficult or impossible to draw In the case of the letters in the present volume, however, there 1s no such difficulty they are forged without intent to deceive (i.e., they are “imaginary ”’), and they all illustrate, in one or way another, the workings of that “‘ Second Sophistic ” which so rarely had the art to hide its art. Some of them are genre letters suggestive of the pastoral idyll, the names of writers and of addressees being avowedly fictitious some of them purport to be written by historical characters to historical characters.

I want to get this down before I forget the list - at the moment I forget where the "cockeyed" reference comes in, but we can circle back for that. This only took me about ten minutes to put together. I am sure there are many more.

Every one one of these major positions of Epicurus can easily be ridiculed. Nevertheless, most of us who study Epicurus come to the conclusion that when we look close they actually contain much more than a "grain" of truth, from at least one very important perspective.

There's enough of this going on that we ought to consider that there is a pattern here. Especially when considered VS29, and the argumentin Gellar-Goad's article describing "the sun is the size it appears to be" as an Epicurean "shibboleth." To be an Epicurean in the ancient world apparently meant being willing to be accused of being ridiculous, so why not even today get used to it and revel in the experience?

Every one of these requires that we set aside superficial interpretations and look for the perspective that makes them true:

1. All sensations are true.
2. Gods are plainly visible to us.
3. A truly blessed and imperishable being spends a life totally unoccupied.
4. Death is nothing to us.
5. Pleasure is the highest good.
6. Pleasure is the absence of pain.
7. The complete absence of pain is not only a pleasure, but the greatest pleasure.
8. The hand in its normal condition is not only experiencing pleasure, but the greatest pleasure.
9. The host who is not in pain is in the same condition of pleasure as the thirsty guest who is given drink.
10. Infinite time contains no greater pleasure than a limited life.
11. Acute pain is short, lesser pains are also short and manageable, and even longer-term pains permit a predominance of pleasure over pain.
12. The size of the sun is at it appears to be.
13. Virtue is not the same for all people at all times and all places, but it is impossible to live a happy life without living virtuously.
14. If the pleasures of a profligate could in fact bring a pleasurable life we would have no cause to blame them, because they would be achieving the goal, which is pleasure, and avoiding the evil of life, pain.
15. If any pleasure could be magnified so as to occupy and remain over time our total experience, pleasures would never differ from ne another.
16. The pleasure in the flesh is not increased when pain due to want is removed, but only varied. PD18
17. Images moving through the air cause us to see ghosts which can be considered to be real and make us think about gods and dead people. (e.g. Cicero's taunt of Cassius Longinus)
18. The dreams of madmen are true.
19. It is not easy to decide how we would act if we could commit crimes without being discovered.
20. Democracy is the worst form of government (Twentier's Philodemus quote)
21. Kings are fine to live under if they bring about an end to men fearing each other. PD6
22. If we were not troubled by fear of gods and death and the limits of pains and desires, we would have no need for natural science.

One good use of this thread would be to point out more we can add to this list.

I have an idea for a new thread, the content of which I won't post here, so as to derail this one, but which deserves discussion of its own.

Ok we can follow up on this topic in a different location so as to leave this current thread open for the images discussion:

Thread

"If You Wish To Be An Epicurean, Get Used To Being Called 'Cockeyed'" - or - "Why Vatican Saying 29 Would Make A Good Epicurean Tatoo"

I want to get this down before I forget the list - at the moment I forget where the "cockeyed" reference comes in, but we can circle back for that. This only took me about ten minutes to put together. I am sure there are many more.

Every one one of these major positions of Epicurus can easily be ridiculed. Nevertheless, most of us who study Epicurus come to the conclusion that when we look close they actually contain much more than a "grain" of truth, from at least one very important…

Cassius

July 9, 2024 at 7:57 AM

Quote from TauPhi

If every object constantly emits eidolas, what about objects that are made up with 2 atoms only? Two atoms combined already make an object and according to the theory, that object should start emitting constant flow of eidolas.

I see that as an example of something we see a lot in modern Epicurean writing - a construction of an Epicurean theory that makes no effort to view the theory in a workable way. If you and I can realize that a two-atom body would not be radiating atoms, then Epicurus would certainly have understood that too. I see no improper deference or leap of faith at all in concluding that everyone - including Epicurus - should realize that two-atom bodies (if they deserve the term bodies at all - are not going to be radiating off particles that they don't have. We don't know a lot about what Epicurus thought about images, but one thing we do know is that images are natural and therefore made of atoms just like everything else.

I don't have the specialized background to be able to take positions on particle physics and develop understandable analogies, but the basic point of the atomic theory, of which images are only a part, is that things happen through the movement of particles through void, and not "supernaturally" without that movement. And while I am perfectly happy to talk about waves and quarks and all sorts of other imaginative names, I am not going to defer to any theorists or theories which ultimately are do not take into account that "natural vs supernatural" position. Call them waves or quarks or whatever, they are "material" from any reasonable viewpoint, and that makes them consistent with Epicurus' position.

That's the base of image theory, not a hostile construction like Cicero was suggesting, which would make no sense, under the Epicurean viewpoint. As noted in my first post, the theory would *not* be that Kodak-quality images are flying through the air that we need no optical lenses or other means to perceive. The more charitable view is probably not much more than that particles from outside, retaining some degree of "arrangement" that does not require lenses focusing onto optical nerves or ears leading to eardums, produce stimulus and reaction in the particles making up the human body. There seem to me to be very logical ways that such a construction can be analogized to modern observations in ways that are productive and not any more ridiculous on their face than the atomic theory itself appeared to the anti-Epicureans 2000 years ago.

I realize that not everyone is going to want to pursue this line of thinking, just like everyone is not going to want to entertain discussion of "god." But the purpose of this forum is to provide a place for those who *do* wish to explore such possibilities in a reasonable manner.

As we proceed in this and other topics like the nature of the gods, our goal will be to allow negative commentary without discouraging or stifling those who want to make positive contributions. I know that Tau Phi speaks for a significant group here, but because I have interacted so much with him personally I also feel sure he would not want his post to be interpreted as stifling free discussion of the topic.

We will moderate the thread as we do the forum, encouraging constructive discussion of epicurean theories even where they seem outdated, Unfortunately, others will read this who have no way of knowing that Tau Phi would not want productive conversation to be stifled. Therefore to be clear, everyone who reads this thread in the future should know that we will treat this topic, as we do all Epicurean positions, respectfully and reasonably. We will encourage constructive discussion of all well-documented Epicurean theories even if conventional wisdom tells us that modern orthodoxy would frown at the idea of taking Epicurus seriously.

Sounds like a very good approach to me!

I will probably re-title this and perhaps move it to physics, but we need at least one thread to discuss possible physical mechanism by which Epicurus' theory of images is treated as possibly containing at least a grain of truth and possibly much more.

I may also rewrite this first post over time, because I was rushing when I first posted it. Primary issues to discus would include:

(1) Analogies for how the brain might be affected by external sources not coming through the eyes or the five senses, which I think would include research on how the brain can be impacted by radiation (including cell phones, and similar issues discussed here: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/14/4/308

(2) Analogous physical principles now known to us by which a received (even with no power) can react to external stimulus, such as passive RFID devices: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chipless_RFID

(3) Exploring just what is reliably asserted about prolepsis / images and what is not, such as our recent discussions that prolepsis would not be the receipt of fully-formed ideas, but something less than that. We know for example that Cicero was joking/picking at Cassius alleging that Epicureans might say that he (Cicero) was thinking of Cassius because of an image of Cassius floating through the air, but that might be a reduction ad absurdem and might well go significantly beyond what Epicurus actually asserted. Presumably Epicurus did not think that fully-formed "conceptual pictures" (like the conceptual picture of Cicero) floated through the air to be interpreted by the mind directly as an image of Cicero, but something less than that, just like the eyes transmit something that in our MINDS we conclude indicates Cicero, not because the eyes "tell" us it is Cicero.

Happy Birthday to Twentier! Learn more about Twentier and say happy birthday on Twentier's timeline: Twentier

Given my own personal background, I tend to imagine gods looking like their appearance in Greek or Roman statues, perhaps updated to fit the science fiction depictions of superior beings that I've also been exposed to over the years. Various "Star Trek" episodes tend to come to mind in my case, particularly "Errand of Mercy" which seems almost as if it was written to address this question. In that episode the god-like examples were portrayed as old men, however, and I don't necessarily see the "old" part as appropriate. (This picture will refresh the memory of those who have seen it.)

To keep it consistent with the views that the Epicureans talked about, I would see a group of beings like that living with absolutely no burdensome work to perform, but still active in an Olympus-like environment, dealing with each other absolutely happily and with no conflicts, and never growing older or subject to disease or death.

I agree with Twentier's first post that as a practical matter it would take a path of technological progression to reach that stage, and that most of the way along that path there would be "work" involved to maintain the machinery to keep the environment safe. And if there is an indeed an issue that the gods are deathless but have not been eternally immortal, then there would be some kind of activity that they are involved in which would maintain them in their state of happiness and security, even though they would not consider that maintenance to be "work."

But in imagining gods of any appearance whatsoever, the core requirement is to see them as totally blessed and imperishable so that they are in no way interested in our human activities, so it's hard to imagine what kind of activities they would find most fruitful to them. So long as that core requirement is maintained, I would expect that we're right in the middle of one of those exercises where "multiple possibilities" have to be entertained, meaning that we have to be satisfied thinking of options but not choosing only one as the only possible godlike way to spend your time. It's easy to understand the point that each person or being is going to have their own history of exposures to different people and depictions and that they will develop their own mental pictures of such beings.

The difference in mental depictions however does not mean that real beings that fit the general descriptions don't actually exist. I have in my mind right now a picture of an average Englishman or average German or average Russian, and just because my mental depictions don't exactly match what I would see if I actually went to England or Germany or Russia, that discrepancy does not mean that Englishmen and Germans and Russians don't actually exist.

The exercise involved in thinking about how such an existence might operate is probably the most beneficial aspect of the exercise, as a means of seeing how we might incrementally adjust our own experience to come as close to that "superior" way of life as we possibly can. It's a way of visually thinking about the question: "How might I reorganize my life to live better given my own circumstances."

Twentiers thread on this is here:

Thread

Give Us an Example of God!

How do you anticipate the gods that are compatible with Epicurean theology?

• I personally imagine a sort of transhumanist depiction of the gods: behold! Human evolution has become re-directed through intentional engineering of bio-mechanical extensions that have cured disease and prevented aging. We live in space stations that are removed from solar radiation and rely upon self-reliant forms of power for energy. Our location in space is deep enough that the expansion of space will forever thicken

…

Eikadistes

July 7, 2024 at 7:29 PM