Posts by Hiram

https://theautarkist.wordpress.com/2019/04/20/hap…-holy-laughter/

Quote from Oscar

.... Additionally, as Matt, rightly, pointed out that Liantinis killed himself in order to protest and emphasize his disdain through a symbolic and final personal act of murdering himself...I interpret that as hatred and disdain against his individual humanity and our collective humanity. Epicurus would certainly not have approved of Liantinis and would've rightly labeled Liantinis a fool.

Matt the ethnic nationalism and anti-semitism in here is stomach sickening...

Cassius, I wish you luck with Epicurean Friends, I'm an Epicurean but ethnic-nationalists and anti-semites are not friends of mine - and witnessing here the thoughtless copy/paste approach by a moderator and dramatic use of fonts and regurgitation of seemingly prepared counter-responses drown out dialogue. Such immature and mindless behaviour has unfortunately, greatly, undermined your project of Epicurean Friends.

I wrote a piece for the Humanist on euthanasia, and the research I did for this proved that only one Epicurean in antiquity ever committed suicide and this was a frowned upon practice among the Epicureans except in cases of terminal disease or when a person is already lying on the battlefield near death. Committing suicide to prove a point politically is about as far from ataraxia / a life of pleasure as one gets.

Also, the problem of nationalism and anti-Semitism is something we have seen before in some Epicurean groups and circles, it's a source of embarrassment and keeps us from being able to effectively carry our message. Here in Chicago I met a guy who I guess considered himself Epicurean (he came to my Epicurean meetup twice) who was a Serbian white supremacy enthusiast (and very homophobic), had strong fascist tendencies, and spent the first 15 minutes of our very first conversation ever spewing arguments in defense of the Bosnian genocide.

I wrote the atheism 2.1 essay hoping to address political militancy among atheists and where it goes wrong, but it could also be applied to the Epicureans.

Previous commentary

--

This reminds me of Nietzsche's treatment of words as both authority or power upon creation / the world, as well as with the insistence among Epicureans in a careful choice of words, something on which we today and in the English language have not focused enough. We have instead been careful to _avoid_ certain words (like faith, God or gods, hedonism) because of their conventionally understood meanings, instead.

Further up from this passage it suggests the need for "adapting certain conventional usages"--which reminds me of the practice (which is mentioned in the recent "against empty words" video) of re-defining words according to nature, and Polyaenus insistence on this in his scroll "on definitions".

In p. 47 Epicurus here mentions that he has recently learned about the "difficulties of using the correct names for individual things". This resonates with my observation that the ancient Epicureans preferred to move away from speaking in the abstract (man) and trying to align their speech as clearly as possible with the concrete examples of categories (humans, men in the plural) to accentuate the individual specimens.

There seems to have been a more complete, comprehensive Epicurean theory of speech, rhetorics, and linguistics than most of us today are aware of (which would make sense in light of the insistence on clear speech).

P. 48 again confirms what we know, that the Epicureans used conventional words and did not disregard conventional meaning ("our own usage does not flout linguistic convention") but yet assigned new and particular meaning to them, keeping in mind their distinct, clear meaning.

p. 49 mentions a work titled "On Ambiguity" as a source that explained why it's an error to transfer words that design the knowable to things that belong in the category of the unknowable. Here, Metodorus and Epicurus are also discussing who is and who is not a worthy intellectual opponent enough to dedicate time to them in light of the goal of benefiting sincere, committed students who want to be happy. Maybe we should discuss these matters more in detail in order to try to imagine what was discussed in that work.

p 50 contains a great quote in defense of empirical thinking, and the idea that false opinions can find themselves into the words of a language "through a non-empirical process, not following one of our current divisions, but simply arising from an internal movement". This is below called a "trace of suspicion" and a call is made to "turn to the entire faculty of empirical reasoning". This is passage is beautiful and of great value!

p. 51: "for the opinion which he holds is, I know, by no means empirically based on current evidence … every opinion to which we had not yet at the time applied an empirical assessment should be referred to the following rule: it is not possible, in my view, to subject every opinion immediately to an empirical assessment, but it is sufficient that a man will be ready merely to display a capacity for reasoning empirically when the opportunity allows. For someone who examines it with this lack of empirical reasoning and in an utterly inadequate fashion, will nevertheless be able to assess it empiritucally, (if it is an opinion that concerns actions, when he has the opportunity to observe someone who proceeds to action on the basis of it; he will see with what results the person performs this action and under its guidance he will arrive at the truth just as much in the category of avoidance as in that of choice".

The above passage re: how to think empirically about action is mentioned in the video on empty words. Concerning theoretical and unempirical opinions, they can be considered false if an empirical opinion based on them is untrue, or if when acted upon they lead to disadvantageous action (meaning that, here, the definite existence of "moral truths" is posited based on disadvantage).

p 55 Epicurus mentions the importance of the canon ("keeping at his side a yardstick with the help of which … he will not proceed in the direction of falsehood"), and of being careful to await for confirmation (that is, empirical evidence) before we declare something to be true.

p 56 closes by citing how important this discourse is: "... try 10,000 times over to commit to memory what I and Metrodorus here have just said".

epilogismos = empirical reasoning

suffix epi “upon,” “on,” “over,” “near,” “at,” “before,” “after”; in case of epidermis it's the pre-skin, what comes before the skin (dermis), so it seems that epi-logismos may imply pre-rational? (logos), or what comes prior to reason (experience), but this has to be confirmed by someone who knows Greek

epilogismoi are also appeals to experience, as moral questions are also solved empirically (judged from experience)

We also have to interpret these discussions as strongly recommending a careful study of the terms used in Epicurean philosophy and their translations into our language to ensure that we are accurately representing the way in which we must study nature.

Continuing previous conversation in the file section (please provide feedback). Here are some additional notes:

"first meaning". "a pre-conception, based on sense evidence, with the help of which a perceived object can be recognized by name", ergo a word used in a secondary non-perceptual sense can have no prolepsis of its own … and E insists that such words be traced back to the preconceptions associated with them in their primary, perceptual senses; that is: refer to nature

It seems like this first (proto) meaning was an extremely important aspect of the Epicurean theory of language. And it was tied to the faculty of anticipations / prolepsis.

To cite the example used in the other discussion: AUTARKEIA.

Let's dissect it referring to its original sense and use.

I am not a native Greek speaker, but even in Spanish and English AUT- deals with self (auto-didactic means self-taught, automatic means "doing things by itself"), auto-estima in Spanish means "self esteem". and -ARCHY means government, rule. Monarchy means government of one, oligarchy is the regime of a few, etc. And so we conclude using the Epicurean method that autarchy is self-rule, governing oneself, setting rules for oneself and obeying oneself (which is actually an idea we also find in Nietzsche, a pre-requisite for self-overcoming).

So here is an instance where a very useful word in philosophy is traced to its roots and we also find a similar concept being used by another philosopher of great esteem.

Self-sufficiency (the usual translation of autarchy) can also be subjected to this investigation of the roots of the word, having to do with oneself (single individual, alone) and suffice / sufficient (not needing anything else or any more than what is there already).

---

more notes:

a particular problem of language, from the Epicurean perspective, is that at some point men of culture began to use empty words. They began to assign false or unnatural (supernatural?) meanings to words for non-existent things, and even to use

p. 21 Epicurus "wants concepts to be clarified by reference to the data of perceptions and feelings, not through mere verbal predication", and "shows strong doubts about the usefulness of definitions"

If we understand this, we can begin to appreciate why Epicureans greatly valued plain speech and distrusted the rhetorical arts, demoting them to a very secondary role in philosophy.

...

p 22 says that Metrodorus had been "building up a private terminology" using ordinary language, but also innovation ("without adapting certain linguistic conventions"). Metrodorus had been, in effect, constructing a language

"a private terminology" sounds like a naming language (a lexicon that can be adapted to any grammar or conventional language), but the act of ignoring linguistic conventions sounds like an act of full-blown conlanging. Metrodorus was attempting, in effect, to construct a language, to fully reform language for the sake of clarity, and to reconcile language with nature.

This accentuates a profound concern and doubt about the accuracy and usefulness of conventional language in philosophy, and a conviction that language obscures thought and needs to be optimized and reformed for the study of nature. Furthermore, (as the work cited says) men frequently mismatch the their perceptions with names in conventional language, which is at the root of many errors.

The least we can say is that the founders called for a healthy distrust and choice of words in all of our investigations and communications.

Nietzsche also shares our fears of what will replace Christianity, and Michel Onfray I think is doing a great job proposing an Epicurean and/or neo-Epicurean alternative. Alain de Botton's "Atheism 2.0" lecture and the "Sunday Assembly" give ideas about what a post-Christian world should look like. I think it's in our self-interest to support Enlightenment and humanist alternatives for creating community and meaning in the West.

I'm sorry if this sounds awful but Vatican City is teeming with sexual predators and their protectors (like "reverend" Bernard Law of Boston, who has his own cathedral and an assistant) who went there desperately trying to evade the law in their home countries. It should not have the privilege of sovereignty (which makes it nearly impossible to extradite criminals, a process which by which politicians risk the anger of the Catholic mobs and the loss of diplomatic ties with "the Catholic World")

If Vatican City burns down, that'll be a day of salvation for abused children all over the world.

Quote from Elayne

As far as addiction goes, of course I have assisted in the treatment of teens, since that is part of pediatric practice, and for that reason I have done a fair amount of research. I think the evidence is most supportive of a process like the one Stanton Peele outlines. I have had several conversations with Stanton on the subject, and I had the pleasure of reviewing an advance copy of his book on developmental aspects of addiction, which is coming out in May. The general gist is that people do not become addicted when they are enjoying pleasure through their innate pleasure pathways-- they tend to have no interest in the mimics, or if they do use them, they do so without becoming addicted. https://peele.net/

So he's involved in the SMART program!? This is great. I first read of the SMART recovery program in an issue of "The Humanist" that also included an article I wrote for them. I remember that the editor took an interest in my mention of Epicurean cognitive therapy because she felt that it related to other essays that were going to appear in the same issue. I'll share some tweets on this.

How the Gut Affects the Brain

Quote from Elayne

... And then the intrinsic pathways of pleasure vs the extrinsically mediated pathways-- I am tempted to call these natural vs unnatural, but that might be a stretch. There seems to me a definite difference between our pleasure systems responding to reality vs a molecule bypassing part of the intrinsic pathway to mimic our innate pleasure systems.

I don't think taking pleasure in an external object is "unnatural", but it is an interesting question whether we inherently trust intrinsic pleasure more than extrinsic pleasure (I imagine you mean here the serotonin or oxytocin that our own brains produce versus the substances that we get from things we eat, etc.)

This goes to a question that I've considered in the past, that part of what it means to be Epicureans is to train ourselves to become self-sufficient in our pleasure (which I don't think excludes external pleasures, just includes the confident expectation that we can have pleasure).

Some people may say "objective versus subjective" but this may be a way to disguise their distrust of and alienation from our neurologically-cogent, direct experience. I don't think this alienation is healthy, so the arbitrary ideal of "the objective" is suspicious to me. The key here is that Epicurean philosophy seeks to reconcile us with NATURE--all of it, our own (internal, and "subjective") nature as well as external.

Concerning the addiction question, I refer you to principal doctrine 20, which includes the adage: "our nature does not shun pleasure", and sets the mind against the body in a "mind over body" logic that is applied in Epicurean therapy. The founders of Epicurean Philosophy observed that our body / our unconscious nature / our id (to use Freudian language for our drives) does not shun pleasure. It is the role of the mind and of reason to understand clearly the limits set by nature to our pleasures and our desires, and it is the role of philosophy and education to civilize us enough to choose and avoid wisely.

So yes, the dangers of addiction exist, but the founders seem to have been confident that, under normal circumstances, one only needs a philosophical education to avoid its dangers. So my opinion is that a person who is always high or drunk has a pathology, a disease and possibly a form of neurosis or psychological illness (and today this is the consensus among professional who treat addiction).

This reminds me of an example I've also used in the past re: our craving for candy, which is sometimes owed to the YEAST in our bellies. Gut bacteria are organisms that have their own agenda and drives, and they can sometimes hijack the neurons in our stomach to make us crave things that our bodies do not need. They are operating as a type of disease or parasite in doing this. Ultimately, our desires and cravings are bodily rooted, and unconscious, and (if they are harmful) we have to apply reason (and sometimes dietary changes and other treatments) against them.

Our friend the Cambridge Unitarian chaplain shares, again, Nail's interpretation of Lucretius, and further takes the Lucretian Venus as a divine role model for his Unitarian-Epicurean spirituality.

https://andrewjbrown.blogspot.com/2019/03/mother…alizing-of.html

I enjoyed reading it and I can see the argument and the idea. I loathe Paul just as much now as I did before, and I share many of Nietzsche's views on Paul.

https://theautarkist.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/sev…schu-tradition/

https://theautarkist.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/hap…ieth-were-here/

The later Roman Epicureans had a tradition of placing this on their tombstones:

Non fui

Fui

Non Sum

Non Curo

"I was not. I was. I am not. I don't care."

Quote

"At one and the same time, we must laugh and philosophize" - Vatican Saying 41

This is where we are "laughing philosophers". We tear this false Christian narrative to shreds with laughter:

https://eidolon.pub/swinish-herds-…ns-efdc9ca6db2d

Quote from michelepinto

The Italian world "dogma" means: "Principle that is accepted as true or just, without critical examination or discussion: proclaim a dogma: in Catholic theology, truth revealed by God or defined by the Church as such, imposed on believers as an article of faith."
In Englis the meaning is: "A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."

Epicurus said that the sage would be a dogmatist (in the English meaning, as we have nothing to do with the Catholic faith).

The very first thing said in Epicurus' epistle to Herodotus is to make sure that words correspond to things clearly observed in nature. We can't use "dogmatism" the way that Catholics and other Platonic, superstitious sects use it. We have to (re-)define words according to nature, and this was done time and again by the founders of EP.

This is because the entire system is based on the study of nature, like science but in the realm of philosophy so as to include ethics. The Nature of things has real, inescapable repercussions on human happiness.

So that (while the God issue is a fair one to question, and I'm one who does), we do have reason to claim many truths if we use the canon (the senses and faculties) and the methods and checks and balances provided to us by nature itself. So we are dogmatists in the philosophical sense, because we are based firmly on the study of nature--which is to say, reality. While there's no need to be arrogant, we do believe people should philosophize with their feet on the ground

Quote from Cassius

Hiram you are much better read in Darwin than am I. Did Darwin ever even cite Epicurus or Lucretius approvingly in his main works for any aspect of his ethics or epistemology (or his physics)? Did Darwin even have an ethics that he promoted as proper, or is all the "Darwinian morality" stuff that people added on as their take on the logical implications.

Darwin was a naturalist, not a philosopher. He did not elaborate ethical repercussions of his finding, as a scientist. He stayed within his realm, and only posthumous interpretations of his SCIENCE by philosophers have been done (sometimes leading to error, as in the case of Nietzsche's mis-understanding of evolution and adaptation via natural selection as if it led to a "superior" or "higher" man or form of life necessarily).

Darwinian "morality" (whatever that means) is an invention of post-Darwin intellectuals.

But note that in nature we see competition, but also cooperation, and that all life exists within **systems** that involve mutual benefit and symbiosis (mutual inter-dependence at many scales), so that so-called "social Darwinism" is a HUGE politically-inspired error. If there is anything that deserves to be called "social Darwinism", it's networks of mutual aid and mutual benefit.

Darwin does not cite Epicurus or Lucretius, as far as I know. He did follow the Lucretian method of FIRST observing nature, then reasoning explanations for what he sees, only based on what has been observed.

Darwin was Christian.

Lucretius could not have been a Darwinian for obvious reasons. He did posit natural selection, but not via Darwinian adaptation and evolution.

I do appeal to Darwinian theory when I explain the pleasure faculty here, because I feel that it sheds light on many aspects of Epicurean ethics:

https://theautarkist.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/the…n-introduction/

I have a chapter in my book on "hedonic regimen", which includes foods and practices tied to studies that I came across related to the science of happiness.

The celebration of the Twentieth with close friends should also be a tradition that we try to revitalize and create cultural and culinary practices around, well beyond cheese and bread and water. Perhaps we should find sympathetic vendors who manufacture customized "Happy Twentieth" candles and decorations. If anyone knows of them, please let me know.

Then there's the problem of self-sufficiency, which should inspire in us long term existential and autarchy projects: starting side hustles or side businesses, financial planning, minding and managing one's business--this is not separate from the practice of philosophy and we should learn to make our productivity a source of pleasure. We are supposed to have (and, presumably, support--if we are really led by "mutual advantage" principles) Epicurean businesses.

Quote

At one and the same time we must philosophize, laugh, and manage our household and other business, while never ceasing to proclaim the words of true philosophy. - Vatican Saying 41

http://societyofepicurus.com/epicureanism-busts/

I think I read somewhere that the brain is the organ that consumes BY FAR the most energy, accounting for up to 20 % of total energy consumption in the body.

Also, on agency and freedom, Sartre tackles this when he says that we are what we make of what life gives us, and in his existential literature he delves into the tension between our facticity (that which we are born with, that we have no control over and acts as gravity pulling us down) and our instinct of freedom, our process of self-creation which we do have control over.

A Concrete Self - addresses some of these "ghost in the machine" issues, which really are inherited from a faulty, Platonized interpretation of reality. The essay reconciles a modern materialist theory of self with Epicurus' teachings in his Epistle to Herodotus according to which bodies gain complexity as they grow and gain particles, and with added complexity they generate "relational" or secondary properties beyond the conventional "atoms and void" properties--both of which are observable and real. The real, observable self emerges organically as symbiosis, as complex systems (like all else in nature), not as a Platonic "Casper" without a body.

http://societyofepicurus.com/a-concrete-self/