Posts by Martin

Beetlemoses imagines how it may happen:

The ancients were certainly aware, that a piece of solid material could be ground such that the piece becomes smaller and the removed specs would still have color if visible or they were not visible, and that water evaporated without that they could see into what. It was straight forward to infer for Epicurus that the smallest spec still visible was not an atom and that atoms were smaller than to be seen with bare eyes. Moreover, his atoms did not have color, which adds to the impossibility to see them.

I would be in for Karaoke. After practicing at bit more, I hope to find a group of Karaoke fans in Bangkok, irrespective of philosophy or religion.

Elayne found a way to enjoy earworms instead of being annoyed by them; maybe it is somewhere on this forum. If a song which I like follows me as an earworm for a day, I enjoy it, too, but not if I do not like the song.

Quote

So...maybe time to get started on the Epicurean songbook!

Here it is:

Music With Epicurean Philosophical Themes - Epicureanfriends.com

Some ideas of Epicurus are impressively compatible with, or analogous too, modern knowledge. However, from an experimental perspective, Asimov's statement that "these are all twentieth-century discoveries" is mostly correct.

Welcome Robert!

In Asia, it is common to tell the age based on the year, irrespective of the day. This may have been common practice in Ancient Greece, too.

Welcome MaiTaiNye!

Quote

Dialectic is a thing of closed logic, of minor and major premises leading inexorably toward irrefutable conclusions.

This seems to be nonsense and disqualifies Higgins as worth to read. Irrefutable conclusions exist only in logic but not in dialectic. The straight-forward logical description of dialectic contains contradictions of the type "A and not A". Whereas dialectic as derived from dialogue and used by Plato may sometimes be useful, the way Hegel's dialectic mimics logic is rather an unintended parody of logic and invalid.

Quote

Do we all agree that "to desire sth" is an "atom of experience" just like "feels warm" is, too, meaning both are indivisible and not made up of smaller, lower-level, more fine-grained units of experience?

I agree, at least in the sense that I am not aware of a meaningful way to compose a desire of smaller units.

Quote

..., he did not think it was important, and in fact was willing to radically redefine, that to which ordinary words are used to refer.

This is in contradiction to the quoted part of the letter to Herodotus:

Quote

For this purpose it is essential that the first mental image associated with each word should be regarded, and that there should be no need of explanation, ...

This means that typically, we should use words the way they are usually meant. Epicurus himself made exceptions from this and then usually gave an explanation why a word would be used with a different meaning than commonly (mis)understood.

The three categories are useful to understand Epicurus' philosophy and for prioritizing among those desires for which it is obvious into which category they fall. For natural but not necessary desires and for desires for which the category is not obvious, e.g. because of individual preferences or circumstances, it is more useful to answer the question whether the expected pleasure is worth the expected pain from fulfilling the desire.

Galaxy is too much for me, too. Solar system appears to be the modern term closest to what Epicurus called a cosmos.

Quote

10. Epicurus includes something that looks a lot like the “Dichotomy of Control” clearly showing they didn’t come up with it but gave it a catchy title.

It seems, "Stoics" or "Stoicism" should be included in this item from Session 4, e.g.

"10. Epicurus includes something that looks a lot like the “Dichotomy of Control” of the Stoics clearly showing they didn’t come up with it but gave it a catchy title."

Welcome Timothy!

Quote

Yes, it would be easier if there were actually a philosopher or scientist who said "I am am advocate of "Scientism" and this is what it means.

As it is (or at least as i understand it) nobody actually advocates such a position.

There are quite a few people who habe been labelled advocates of Scientism by others or themselves, e.g.:
Auguste Comte (positivist philosopher, apparently without using the term "Scientism")
Peter Atkins (reported to have asserted the “universal competence” of science in his essay “Science as Truth”, 1995)
James Ladyman, Don Ross, and David Spurrett (reportedly in their book "Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized", 2007)
Alex Rosenberg
Don Ross

After first reading of Cassius' comment, I agree with him but have the following to add:
Epicurus' philosophy is not Scientism because in Scientism, the scientific method is the only method to produce meaningful/"true"/reliable knowledge of the world.
Whereas the formation of preconceptions from sensations may be interpreted as a precursor of science, the feelings as another leg of the Epicurean canon go much further than the narrow scope of science.
Adherents of Scientism do use science as their only tool and usually do that properly and usually not as a rhetorical tool. They differ from people with other worldviews in that they do not accept other sources of knowledge.
Underpinning arguments ‘scientifically’ with research and statistics is the proper way to conduct debates on topics which are inherently within the scope of science. Trying that for aspects which are out of the scope of science is sometimes called Scientism, too, but the people who apply science out of its scope are usually not scientists because scientists usually know the limits of their profession.
Epicureans use scientific knowledge to get rid of beliefs in supernatural gods and the afterlife and and other superstitions, and to make prudent decisions on which options for goals are feasible and which actions are effective but within that scope of wise choices, they use pleasure and not science to set there goals and decide on actions. Most of the ethics of Epicurus is based on pleasure as the goal. E.g., the Epicurean emphasis on friendship comes from pleasure as the goal and not from science.
To answer whether an adherent of Scientism lacks the right telos and overall understanding of human existence, we would need to pick specific people and answer the question for each individual.

Just to correct a historic distortion which was apparently created by the movie "300":

Quote

...Leonidas and the 300...

The references vary but they all agree that more other Greeks than the 300 Spartans made the last stand with Leonidas at Thermopylae.

Welcome UnPaid_Landlord!

The question "What is the primary cause of atomic motion?" does not make much sense in Epicurean physics. "Atomic weight" as the answer is wrong because there is no primary cause since the atoms have already been in motion since an eternity in Epicurean physics.