Posts by Hiram

Utilitarianism can only go so far. We can only aim to please others to an extent, then we lose our ataraxia and our own enjoyment. BUT a good discussion would be on the limits to which we are willing to go for our friends and associates, for the sake of MUTUAL BENEFIT (which = justice). And based on this we can discuss various models of what Michel Onfray called hedonic covenant.

Quote from KDF

4. No Work - I never liked working, and it has been torture for me for the last 25 years. I am fortunate enough to be in a position that I could retire comfortably my most standards, but found that the idea of not working carried with it a ton baggage. What would people think if I didn't work? How much did my career define my identity? What if I want more stuff in a few years? I own a company, and just made the decision to let my employees do my job. It is an experiment that could result in the company failing. If the company survives it will be great for me and the employees. If the company fails, I will do my best to help the employees land somewhere. Either way I am not going to work another day.

Below are my Reasonings on Philodemus' scroll on Property Management, which give moral guidance re: autarchy, the most relevant subject in Epicurean philosophy. There, one of the seven conclusions, is "the philosopher does not toil". Please read and I hope you profit from reading this:

http://societyofepicurus.com/on-philodemus-…agement-part-i/

http://societyofepicurus.com/on-philodemus-…gement-part-ii/

I see a connection between Epicurus' dethroning of Reason (Athena) by Pleasure / Nature (Aphrodite) and Nietzsche's balancing of Apollonian and Dionysian qualities. Nietzsche gave huge importance to INSTINCT and GUTS as a source of meaning and as a manner of philosophizing.

But we haven't really delved too much into the Dionysian theme in the Epicurean group. It would imply a willingness to engage in ritual, and in play, and in dance, and other activities that are pleasurable ways of creating values.

Also, on justice as an instinct / anticipation:

Monkeys Sense Injustice as Well

Dogs sense injustice!

Dogs refuse to play ball if they have been treated unfairly A sense of justice could be crucial for social animals and may have played a role in the evolution of cooperation

Instincts are born OF THE BODY and are physical, natural.

It seems to me that, just as with the instincts and faculties in our brain that help us to detect sunlight and align ourselves with the circadian rhythms of the planet, there is an inner mathematics that our body is naturally disposed to carry out, but this mathematics in the case of justice seems to be applied to symmetry (and ergo to aesthetics) in interpersonal relations.

= justice is always RELATIVE and specific to the people and circumstances.

Also, "absolute justice" seems to imply authority, which emerges from people's willful interactions with each other and their writing of laws. The assumption of (arbitrary) external or eternal authority without the context of our rules and laws are written / agreed to, loses sight of the relativity of justice.

Concerning this,

Quote

It seems to me that the Epicurean answer to that is that "truth" to us is that which we perceive through our senses, and through our faculty of pleasure and pain (which aren't strictly the same thing as the senses), and our faculty of "preconceptions/anticipations."

When I studied the Cyrenaics and I got to the part where Lampe identified their radical subjectivism, which I label "hedonic solipsism", it occurred to me that one way in which E countered that is by adding the physics to the ethics, but he did not do away with the pleasure/pain experience as "true".

What this means is that there is the recognition of objective (physical) reality as well as subjective (emotional, feeling) reality. That they are both "true" and REAL, in different ways. And in ways that matter to philosophy.

(This same criticism applies to Buddhism, which teaches that all is mind, and to Nietzsche even who claims that all truth is subjective and relative)

Quote

“Aristippus also instructed his disciples in a zen-like discipline known as “presentism”, or being in the present, as a therapeutic spiritual exercise. This virtuous practice was linked to the philosopher’s adaptability: he was willing to put less faith in his ability to control what happens in the future than in his ability to adapt to it. This would later influence defiant attitudes towards Fortune in Principal Doctrine 16 and Vatican Saying 47.”

https://theautarkist.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/cyr…us-the-younger/

"Aristippus saw the world in terms of opportunities for pleasure and risks of pain" is another insight from the Lampe book. The word "opportunist" has negative connotations today, and also does not incorporate the meaning of "risk avoidance", but adaptability does.

Principal Doctrine 16 ("Chance seldom interferes with the wise man; his greatest and highest interests have been, are, and will be, directed by reason throughout his whole life.")

Are any minutes / notes being taken in these discussions with the intention of publishing them later as study guides or for educational value?

https://theautarkist.wordpress.com/2018/04/20/hap…e-of-knowledge/

Do you have more commentaries re: these observations? I will write a piece on this.

Quote from Cassius

In other words, even in a short presentation it should be possible to point out that Epicurean ethics are not arbitrary, but derive straight from the more fundamental presumptions about the nature of the universe and the nature of man.

Yes, you could draw a tree of assumptions that branch off from base assumptions. But you would not want to do this every single time you teach a class on Epicurean philosophy. Once certain assumptions are made that are clearly established and clearly founded on previous ones, they can serve as starting points for future investigations. This is how all science evolves.

Will write this as a post on SoE.

Quote

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —

Would an Epicurean agree that what follows in the paragraph after the first phrase are "self-evident?" What does "self-evident" mean?

I don't think they are self-evident, or that Epicurus would agree that men were created (as there is no creator).

We know today that men evolved through natural selection, and that nature did not have an intention of creating men or any other particular species. Natural selection follows the path of least resistance, of greatest opportunity / advantage, if and when / insofar as species are able to adapt to their environment.

The document was written in the context of setting the grounds / seeds for a new country with a new law and a new constitutional framework. An Epicurean would consider these matters in terms of mutual benefit / mutual advantage. Within this context, I think "self-evident" implies that these are matters beyond reproach and that are not up for negotiation, that they constitute the minimum standard by which they were willing to found a new country and a new law, that the social contract would have to abide by these principles.

Quote

Would an Epicurean agree that "all men are created equal." It is absolutely clear that all men are NOT created equal in every respect (health, sex, race, capabilities, preferences, etc.) It is also clear to an Epicurean that men are not "created" if that term implies a supernatural god. In what respect, if any, would an Epicurean say that "all men are created equal."

What does it mean to say "endowed by their Creator?" Would an Epicurean use this phrasing? If so, what would an Epicurean mean by "their Creator?"

What does the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" mean in Epicurean terms?

Men are not 'created'. If we understand nature, metaphorically, as creatrix, then we may concede this, but there is WAY too much religious baggage here to accept it in my view.

We are endowed with nature with certain instincts and faculties and tendencies, and (a very strong case can be made) with a sense of morality and justice, but not with rights, inalienable or not.

Rights are born from the laws or rules we create to facilitate co-existence. The only way in which we could say that they come from "the Creator" or "Nature" is if we ourselves are understood to be co-creators or part of nature, and you could make that case, but it's best to speak clearly, and the original language seems to indicate a Creator in the deist sense, which is an error.

"Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" - I want to go back to the idea of negotiating a new social contract for a new country, if I was Thomas Jefferson and if I had to negotiate the terms under which I, as an Epicurean, wanted to or was forced to co-exist with others OF RELIGIOUS CONVICTION, these ideas would definitely belong there. I would not care if others believe that these "inalienable rights" come from "the Creator" if, for the sake of mutual benefit, these rules are agreeable to me and others, even if I'd rather not word these principles as inalienable rights coming from a Creator.

In other words, this is a Charter for religious and non-religious people of various convictions and faiths to co-exist, and what pass for "inalienable rights" are acceptable to a non-religious person.

Life is safety; liberty is autarchy; and pursuit of happiness is self-explanatory and a natural extension of liberty; these are natural pleasures, and necessary to happiness and life in Epicurean terms.

Quote

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —

This passage is perhaps easiest to reconcile given the Principle Doctrines on "justice." How could we elaborate on this in Epicurean terms as to the meaning of "just powers" and "consent of the governed?"

As for "just powers", PD 37 speaks of them in terms of mutual advantage, and these powers may change and evolve and apply differently in different situations and to different people:

37. Among the things held to be just by law, whatever is proved to be of advantage in men's dealings has the stamp of justice, whether or not it be the same for all; but if a man makes a law and it does not prove to be mutually advantageous, then this is no longer just. And if what is mutually advantageous varies and only for a time corresponds to our concept of justice, nevertheless for that time it is just for those who do not trouble themselves about empty words, but look simply at the facts.

Concrete examples in our own constitutional framework is how states have their rights and their form of sovereignty, versus how the federal government has its own rights and form of sovereignty and its own jurisdiction, versus how the different Indian Nations and Reservations have their own rights and forms of sovereignty, their own schools, police, etc. all according to mutual benefit.

Quote

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

Again, this passage seems directly supported by the Principle Doctrines on justice. How would an Epicurean elaborate on the meaning of this passage?

This is an application of PD 37-38:

38. Where without any change in circumstances the things held to be just by law are seen not to correspond with the concept of justice in actual practice, such laws are not really just; but wherever the laws have ceased to be advantageous because of a change in circumstances, in that case the laws were for that time just when they were advantageous for the mutual dealings of the citizens, and subsequently ceased to be just when they were no longer advantageous.

The Declaration only mentions "safety and happiness", which is a good start, but in the Letter to Menoeceus we find mention among the things that are needful and natural also of health of the body and tranquility of mind, of avoiding bodily uneasiness (threats, enslavement, exploitation, plagues, serious disease), which seems to imply that an Epicurean system of government would also be invested in public health, including mental health:

Quote

And of the necessary desires some are necessary if we are to be happy, some if the body is to be rid of uneasiness, some if we are even to live. He who has a clear and certain understanding of these things will direct every preference and aversion toward securing health of body and tranquillity of mind, seeing that this is the sum and end of a blessed life.

Quote

Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?

Although we know Thomas Jefferson as the true author, the Second Continental Congress initially appointed five people to draw up a declaration. The committee included Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was then given the task of writing a draft for the Declaration of Independence, which from June 11 to June 28 he worked on. Before he presented the Declaration to the Continental Congress, he showed it to John Adams and Benjamin Franklin; they made revisions. He presented the draft to Congress on July 1, 1776 and more revisions were made. On the fourth of July the delegates met in what we know today as Independence Hall, but back then was known as the Pennsylvania State House, and approved the Declaration. John Hancock, the President of the Continental Congress signed the declaration along with Charles Thomson and it was sent to John Dunlap’s print shop for printing.

Source: https://www.surfnetkids.com/independenceda…f-independence/

So it seems like this was a process not too different from how we have co-written together the narratives for videos on youtube and some of our dialogues. Jefferson wrote it with feedback from four other men who were steeped in the political philosophy of the day (Locke, Rousseau, and others).

Quote from Cassius

All this sounds fine, but why should I accept Epicurus' opinion that a simple life is all I should want out of life?

1. Haven't we always been taught that nothing good comes easily? ...
2. Did I hear you say that we should never want power? ...
3. ...how much time do I need to satisfy your definition of a pleasurable life? Can I take enough pain pills ...

Many of these questions are easily addressed if we take up Philodemus' way of teaching in terms of "natural measure of" wealth, etc. I applied this to the idea of a natural measure of community, and some commentators of Philodemus have argued that this natural measure is based on what is natural and necessary. Once THAT measure of that is secured, the rest is variation in pleasure.

We could argue that there's also a NATURAL measure of power (over one's space, security, and business) that one must secure if one wants self-sufficiency.

One positive way to state this is that we believe that our values should be founded on The Study of NATURE, while other belief systems have shaky foundations. Might be worth a YouTube video in the future, I’ve always felt that E’s project is to reconcile us with nature, and I think many atheists / humanists would benefit from learning new ways to affirm their values in positive terms as founded on “the study of nature” rather than in negative terms as a reaction against religious lies, which puts them at a disadvantage rhetorically.

I think one key argument that helps them to consider E is to convince them of the need to take care of their existential health via some kind of therapeutic philosophy (and to then stress how E has something different to offer from Buddhism).

More specifically Epicurean exercises should be conducted around Autarchy. I wrote this piece on autarchy for Minority Mindset

https://t.co/UYpZBWkLUI

Quote from Maciej

Btw Lukian was not epicurean himself and i do not know why all of you treating him like one. Because he spoke favorably about epicureanism three times in entire corpus of works? By the same standard seneca should be epicurean also and even bigger one since he spoke favourably about epicurus more than 20 times in one book.

Lucian's words about Epicurus in "Alexander the oracle monger" exhibit a level of reverence comparable to Lucretius in DRN.

The following is a review of the book "Why Buddhism is True", which evaluates the claims of Buddhism in light of the Epicurean canon. Here is the full review (please share and comment):

https://theautarkist.wordpress.com/2018/02/16/rev…ddhism-is-true/

Two of the portions concern the idea of the self and the idea of feeling as an important component of human cognitive function. Buddhism teaches that there is no self. I argue that if Buddhists would look for a concrete self rather than a Platonic self, they would find it, and I share several theories relevant to a concrete self.

As secular Buddhism continues expanding in the West as a viable alternative for atheists, its arguments will continue to get more sophisticated, and it is likely that Buddhism will produce intellectual challenges worthy of our respect and attention in the coming decades.

https://theautarkist.wordpress.com/2018/02/16/rev…ddhism-is-true/

Dialogue on Katastematic Pleasure

http://societyofepicurus.com/dialogue-on-katastematic-pleasure/

On the Standard Interpretation of Static Pleasure

http://societyofepicurus.com/on-the-standar…tatic-pleasure/