Posts by Hiram

Mako, Polystratus in "Irrational Contempt" made the case that your pleasure or aversion to other things is REAL, it's a real experience. He compared it to a magnet and how it attracts metal, but not other stones; or how some herbs serve as medicines when one is sick but not when one is whole.

So there are primary and SECONDARY (or relational) properties of bodies according to Epicurus' letter to Herodotus, and Polystratus placed issues related to pleasure and aversion in the second category. Which means that there are different ways in which things can be true or real.

Quote from Cassius

Look at fragment 113, also without wider context. Applied literally this one would be a prescription for living in a cave, and I would consider it significantly contradictory to other passages if it were not placed in context.

... Why would we ever strive or strain for anything, why would we ever sally out from any gate to meet any ill, if we were going to set a rule of never being occupied with much business, never tackling distasteful matters, or pushing ourselves to expand our capabilities?

So I would say this one requires gentle handling due to the lack of context.

This is echoed in Philodemus' On Property Management. Philodemus says "the philosopher DOES NOT TOIL", and also praises the practice of delegating tasks. So, obviously a manager of an estate is not living in a cave, but values his time and does not do menial labor, dedicating himself instead to more pleasant activities without losing his diligence and responsibilities.

I did a quick search in WordPad through the document for the word "disposition" and this is what came out:

Fr. 111

It is not nature, which is the same for all, that makes people noble or ignoble, but their actions and dispositions.

Fr. 112

The sum of happiness consists in our disposition, of which we are master. Military service is dangerous and one is subordinate to others. Public speaking is full of agitation and nervousness as to whether one can convince. Why then do we pursue an occupation like this, which is under control of others?

Fr. 113

Nothing is so conductive to contentment as not being occupied with much business, not tackling distasteful matters, and not being forced at all beyond one’s own capability. For all these things provoke disturbances in our nature.

Diogenes' Wall argues that pleasures of the mind link us to past and future experiences, and can be more intense, stronger, and of longer duration than those of the body, and argue that we are "in control of our (mental) disposition", which seems to indicate that some kind of mental discipline is needed to secure long-term pleasures by habituating ourselves to be in a pleasant disposition.

https://theautarkist.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/dio…-the-pleasures/

https://theautarkist.wordpress.com/2017/03/31/dio…al-doctrine-20/

I'd argue that the same logic that applies in "On Anger" by Philodemus (see the SoFE site on this scroll) would apply here: pain can be both virtuous (if it produces long-term advantage / pleasure, for instance the ceasing of hostilities) and it can also be PRODUCTIVE.

Hiroshima, when the bomb exploded, was awful. But we have NEVER again had problems with Japan, which reformed itself as a country and is one of the most important global allies we have today. I can't say whether or not we may have gained a similar result through a different means, but in this case, hedonic calculus worked to produce security and long-term mutual benefit for both countries and the rest of the world.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…D2%3Acard%3D522

those primal germs

Which have been fashioned all of one like shape

Are infinite in tale; for, since the forms

Themselves are finite in divergences,

Then those which are alike will have to be

Infinite, else the sum of stuff remains

A finite

Lucretius, DRN II-525

It says here that "the forms themselves are finite in divergences", referring to the primal germs (particles).

Quote from Cassius

1 - 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. - everything has a corresponding answering part (?)

2 - "This is called by Epicurus ισονμία (isonomia); that is to say, an equal distribution or even disposition of things." - equal distribution

3 - From hence he draws this inference, that, as there is such a vast multitude of mortals, there cannot be a less number of immortals.

4 - Further, if those which perish are innumerable, those which are preserved ought also to be countless.

I don't see it. So we see a progression (in Darwinian terms, the proper understanding is "adaptation to circumstances according to natural selection", so that you can have a blind mole rat, for instance, perfectly adapted to its environment, yet it's blind--progression does not imply superiority, just adaptation in Darwinian understanding). I can agree that we are likely not the apex of living beings and that there may be superior beings somewhere. But from there where does it lead to infer that there must be an innumerable number of perfected beings? Or that some kinds of beings correspond to others by need or in number?

When the dinosaurs were extinct, for instance, their atoms did not turn into other beings, they returned to the elements. We have no reason to infer that in the intermundia there was a reduction in amount of beings, etc. I just don't see how one things follows from another, how the amount of perfected beings must correspond to not perfect ones.

Quote from Cassius

Also Maciej: When you say: "2. What is conceivably possible to exist in infinite universe necessarily somewhere exist."

I gather this is the step to which Hiram objects, and I am not confident of it either. Can you state the basis for your confidence in it?

I agree but only up to the point that it obeys laws of nature.

When we study nature, we see that there may be infinite number of atoms, but LIMITED number of combinations of atoms according to the properties of the various elements and laws of nature. Ergo, there is a limit to the possibilities of life and manifestations of natural phenomena. This is explained (I think) in the Letter to Herodotus.

Okay, I remember the problem.

"He so interpreted the significance of infinity as to extend it from matter and space to the sphere of VALUES - perfection and imperfection..."

This is what in my view DOES NOT follow from infinity. Why would infinity of space and atoms imply infinity of values, or of "imperfection", etc.

What IS perfection anyway? Where in nature is it observable? And why do we need to imagine that it exists somewhere?

And that this theory was posited in service of a theology also raises questions, not about sincerity, but about the need. Because if what it was seeking to explain was entirely non-observable, then it may be that it starts from a faulty premise.

A concise essay on isonomia would really help. I think the question was whether this "law" really followed as an inference from the infinity of the universe.

I hope you or someone else who better understands isonomia would write a clear essay explaining it. It never made sense to me, and in fact I think in our last conversation on the subject we proved it was an incorrect theory. Maybe you can publish, comment on, or edit that dialogue, if you can find it? I am not able or willing to defend isonomia without understanding what I'm talking about.

Quote from Mako

The gods are immortal beings that are imperceptible to us. (**)

(**) My confusion shows here. Epicurus denied the existence of a God, but I thought I recall him also saying they exist, but are not as man believes them to be. They immortal and happy, the model that we seek to follow by living a pleasurable life. Was Epicurus using the word "God" to demonstrate this, but not actually claiming there were heavenly figures above us?

I don't recall Epicurean sources saying that the gods are imperceptible, as this would make the entire system fall: our philosophy is based on the study of nature, ergo SOME form of perception must be possible.

There are three interpretation of the gods.

The realist interpretation of the gods says their bodies are atomic and they are real animals living in intermundia. It seems like the "anticipations" are supposed to be the way we perceive them (with the mind) according to the realist view, but I personally reject this: anticipations only happen AFTER you have perceived something once, and then the imprint becomes familiar. Others may say via dreams we may receive particles from the gods, sort of the same way that neutrinos and other galactic particles travel through our bodies daily without our knowing. Others may argue that the gods are not directly perceived, but are inferred from the doctrine of innumerable worlds, which posits that life exists throughout the universe and there's no reason to think we are the apex of life forms; so gods are those animals that are vastly superior to us in the ecology of the universe.

The idealist interpretation says they are cultural and mental constructs meant for contemplation, but not physically real. The atheistic interpretation is that this is an obsolete teaching and that religious pleasure may be natural, but it's unnecessary.

All options are explored here: http://societyofepicurus.com/for-there-are-gods/

The goal of religious piety is to experience "pure, unalloyed pleasure", as per Philodemus' scroll "On Piety", a commentary on which can be found on the SoFE webpage. So that is the key point to take away: if you're going to engage in religious practices, make sure to study that in order to protect your experience and maximize the benefit.

The third interpretation (which I and Ilkka endorse most vocally) is explained here: https://theautarkist.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/the…epicurean-gods/

on this:

Quote

2.2 Reasoning should be in line with the ultimate goal of life, and should use the senses and observations as its criteria for determining what is painful and pleasurable, and therefore what is true.

I think you should later take time, when you have time, to study the Canon. This sounds like you confuse what is pleasant with what is true. Or that you think because something "feels good" it must be true, which might be misinterpreted as religious wishful thinking, or misappropriated by wishful thinking.

What our tradition teaches is that pleasure and aversion are true experiences, but they are true in a way which is different from how the things reported by our five senses are true. Within the canon, each set of faculties has its own jurisdiction over one function. Only EYES can see, only EARS can hear, and only PLEASURE-AVERSION can report what is pleasant or not. So each has jurisdiction over one aspect of reality.

Therefore that something is "true" does not follow from something being pleasurable. It is true if ANY of the faculties report it, with pleasure and aversion being only one of the legs of the canon.

You may find more on this in the second half of this dialogue:

http://societyofepicurus.com/dialogue-on-the-social-contract/

eu = good, daimon = spirit; we still use this word in English when we say someone is "in good spirits", and in Spanish when we say "de buen ánimo" (meaning the exact same thing, and the word ánimo comes from Latin "anima"). The word "animarse" is to become animated, to (re)gain the will to llive and the strength to fight one's battles, so cancer patients often gain their "ánimo" in Spanish after they recover.

And when you greet somebody in SPanish saying "ánimo!", you're basically saying "be strong, have vitality, be a fighter, you can win". So these are the connotations of the words that are cognates to "eudaimonia" in modern languages.

There is a "petty bungler" quote which insinuates that he believed God had created the universe, but then retreated?

And he had a hand in writing the Declaration of Independence, which I don't remember if it mentions "nature's God", but I know the Constitution does.

Physics / The nature of things

1. Things are made, ultimately, of particles and void.
2. Bodies have inherent / primary and relational / secondary properties.
3. Nothing comes from nothing.
4. All that exists, exists within nature and there can not be a super-natural or un-natural “realm”; it would not have a way of existing outside of nature, that is: reality.
5. All things obey laws of nature, which apply everywhere.
6. True philosophy is based on the study of nature and, unlike religions, rather than furnish an escape, must ultimately reconcile us with nature.

Canon / Epistemology

1. External and “objective” nature is knowable via the five senses.
2. Internal and “subjective”, or that which is dis/advantageous to us is knowable via the pleasure and aversion faculties.
3. We may infer the unseen / un-apprehended based on what has been previously seen / apprehended by any of our faculties; and we may re-adjust our views based on new evidence presented to our faculties.
4. Our words and their meanings must be clear, and conform to the things that nature has presented to our faculties, in order to be useful and efficient.

Ethics / Art of Living (My views are mine, not necessarily the orthodox view – I allow for both the second and third interpretations of the Epicurean gods)

1. It is possible that the pleasures of religion are natural, but it is unclear whether they are necessary. Religion is, therefore, an optional feature in an ethical person’s life.
2. If a person adopts belief in gods (even if they are viewed as cultural constructs, imaginary, or works of art meant for utility within contemplative practices), those beliefs must be pure, not fear-based, and not go against the god’s incorruptibility and bliss; they must have pleasant psycho-somatic effects.
3. The goal of religion, as with all else, is the experience of pure, unalloyed pleasure.
4. Death is nothing to us because when we are, death is not and when death is, we are not.
5. Choices and avoidances are carried out successfully (that is, producing stable pleasure as the final product) if we measure advantages/pleasures versus disadvantages/pains over the long term. This means that we may sometimes defer pleasure, or choose temporary disadvantage, but only and always for the sake of a greater advantage later.
6. If we wish to live pleasantly, we must have confident expectation that we will be able to secure the chief goods: those things that are natural and necessary. Therefore, whatever we do to secure safety, friendship, autarchy, provision of food and drink and clothing, and other basic needs, is naturally good.
7. Under normal circumstances, we are in control of our mental dispositions.
8. Autarchy furnishes much greater possibilities of pleasure than slavery, or dependence, or living at the mercy of the whims of luck; ergo the unplanned life is not worth living, and we must make what is in our future better than what was in our past.
9. We must not force nature; We study nature in order to live pleasantly, not to wage war against reality/nature.
10. True philosophy has utility: it must serve human needs and happiness.

Quote from Cassius

Hiram I looked at your page - is that a QUOTE from Lampe, or your summary. If a quote would be good to keep this for regular use.

And if not a quote, STILL good for regular use!

It's a quote of myself in the book review.

Lampe has many VERY good direct quotes, though, and his book can help us to train people in techniques that are specifically used to maximize pleasure. Things like Cyrenaic "presentism" (they trained their followers to be in the present, not only to resist otherworldly fancy but also to enjoy the moment, and this idea of philosophizing with our feet on the ground is an important one that we haven't capitalized enough), and a Cyrenaic virtue of adaptability which implies putting "less faith in his ability to control what happens in the future than in his ability to adapt to it".

This is a very ancient discussion. I wrote on it when discussing the first Cyrenaics:

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

"Lampe thinks that Cyrenaics are eudaimonics (believed in happiness as the end, not just pleasure), but most scholars disagree. It’s likely that a variety of views existed within the school regarding the end. One of the key arguments for hedonism (i.e. pleasure as the end) in its inception had to do with how pleasure is not the same thing as happiness. Pleasure is an instance, happiness is a collection of pleasures, and as such happiness is therefore an abstraction, a platonized alternative to the real experience of pleasure. This argument is interesting, and still generates debate and various opinions today."

Hiram started a new event:
epicureanfriends.com/wcf/calendar/event/118/

Quote

Carnegie Council celebrates this as Global Ethics Day. One proposal is that every Epicurean should promote the Letter to Menoeceus, with quotes and articles, in social media for a few weeks.

Also here’s a review of my book brett

https://thehumanist.com/magazine/janua…picurean-garden

And link to it

http://www.humanistpress.com/tending-the-epicurean-garden.html