Posts by Godfrey

Happy birthday Onenski!

To digress, a reason to study Epicurus, in particular, is that he's something of the "missing link" of western philosophy. I was put off by Platonism, Aristotelianism and monotheism and looked for a time to the eastern philosophies for a more suitable conception of "the way things are". When I discovered that there was someone who based his philosophy on atomism over 2000 years ago, I was quite astounded.

In Epicurus I've found a gateway to many things, not least of which is a coherent, modern worldview. Studying the ancients is useful not only as a historical relic, but as the starting point of much of modern thought and a clearer understanding of how we as a society came to understand our place in the world. Without this basis I find it quite difficult, if not impossible, to make sense of the threads of philosophical discourse going on today.

‘Truth is a pathless land. There is no guide, no law, no tradition which will lead you to it but your own constant and intelligent awareness.’ J. Krishnamurti

Quote from BrainToBeing

They may be a method of assessment for a personal view of truth. However, I hold that as different from "Truth" (with a capital "T", a universal truth).

Ah, therein lies the rub! A fundamental view of Epicureans is that there is no universal Truth. Or to put it another way, the universal truth is that we live in a material universe with no supernatural god(s) and no afterlife. Much of Epicurus' thinking was in response to, and a refutation of, Platonic forms and ideals. Since he posited that there is nothing other than atoms and void, an idea floating around in their midst would be tantamount to the mind being located in a mist floating around outside of the body.

The Stoics believed in a universal logos: an intelligent universe. That was one of the fundamental differences between them and the Epicureans. You can find Marcus Aurelius pondering this in his Meditations. Interestingly, the modern Stoics seem to have largely stepped away from this idea. An interesting treatment of the conflict is in Cicero's On the Nature of the Gods, a book which introduced me to the Epicurean position and convinced me of the fallacy of the logos (which result would have been much to Cicero's horror).

For some reason this brings to mind the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, in which the author and protagonist gradually goes mad in a search for a universal Quality. He was vainly trying to define something that doesn't exist. The admittedly difficult issue that must be dealt with on a personal level is whether one believes that there is no Truth out there, or whether there is one that we as yet are unable to fathom.

Re the Epicurean conception of pleasure vs values:

Principal Doctrine 5: "It is not possible to live joyously without also living wisely and beautifully and rightly, nor to live wisely and beautifully and rightly without living joyously; and whoever lacks this cannot live joyously." (From here)

Compare that with this:

Quote from BrainToBeing

I do many things that are ethically appropriate but do not derive to my personal pleasure. For example, in my medical career I could have made a boatload more money if I practiced for my "pleasure". But, I didn't. I did what I thought was ethically appropriate for patients, illness, and the healthcare system. Many, many times this made my life harder.

In Epicurean terms, one would weigh the potential pleasures of a boatload of money vs the pleasure of knowing that you did no harm, and/or the future pleasure (which is what you would be/are experiencing now) of living guilt free, knowing that you did the right thing. Additionally, one would measure the pains involved, such as you describe, in addition to the future pain (again, now) of guilt and regrets for the harm you may have caused. In this way and others, one finds that the Epicurean way of life is one based on personal responsibility. I would suggest that you actually acted in alignment with PD05 without being aware of the doctrine. Because this how Epicurus basically saw biology as working. This reality is far different from the picture painted by Cicero and others throughout the ages who refuse to accept a definition of pleasure as other than titillation.

Getting back to the title of this thread, "What If Anything Has Changed About Human Nature In the Last 2000 Years?"....

It would seem to me that the best way to address this question, at least in this forum, is to examine it in terms of the Epicurean Canon: sensations, anticipations and feelings. First, are there any new faculties in addition to these three that have arisen in the last 2000 years? Second, have any of the three faculties changed significantly in the last 2000 years?

To my understanding, the answer to the first question is "no".

As to the second question, current science has helped to explain the canonic faculties in more detail but, as far as I know, hasn't discovered anything new that wasn't a part of the faculties 2000 years ago. For example, we now talk of more than just five senses, but these aren't something that didn't exist 2000 years ago: we're just aware of them now even though they were an integral part of how humans have previously functioned.

But, and correct me if I'm wrong BrainToBeing , this seems to be the central problem that you're concerned with, which is responding to a variety of existential threats:

Quote from BrainToBeing

But, now we need to have the whole population understand how to think with science, and be willing to work with "inconvenient science".

Epicurean philosophy is based on "the way things are", as Lucretius famously said. And the ethics, for the most part, arises out of the physics and the canonic. The physics isn't going to change in any way that will meaningfully affect human behavior, precisely due to the problem in the quote. The way that humans acquire knowledge (the canon) isn't going to change meaningfully either.

Of the three faculties of the canon, none to them are, to my mind, something that will change any time soon. Evolution, after all, occurs at a glacial pace.

Any ethical change occurs in the individual; only when the number of individuals changing reaches a critical mass can it be said that institutional or societal ethics has changed. The only way to speed this up, I think, is by exponentially increasing the number of individuals being reached. And they must be reached in a way that directly and repeatedly stimulates each of their canonic faculties if the information is going to take hold. Unfortunately, the majority of those with the ability to do this are promoting the exact opposite of the point of view in the above quote.

So it is largely a political problem, which in order to avoid fracturing the community that we have here, we have agreed not to discuss. However it is an urgent problem. From an Epicurean point of view, this is pain and is therefore something that each of us needs to address in some way. This is what is meant by pleasure being the absence of pain: one must be aware of their pain. The feelings are two, pleasure and pain, and the goal of a healthy organism is pleasure. One must examine the pain and determine if it's leading to greater pleasure, or if it's something that needs to be rooted out. Then one can figure out the most effective way to remove the pain, or if the pain is determined to be incurable, to deal with it. Sometimes the solution will be individual and sometimes it will mean actively engaging the public sphere.

Quote

That is, do you think "the mind" exists, in part, outside of the skull?

BrainToBeing to be honest, I'm just beginning to look into the idea of the "extended mind" and am curious as to your thoughts on the matter. I certainly don't put any stock in a mist floating outside of the body, or of a supernatural spirit.

I just listened to the Annie Murphy Paul interview that Don linked to. She seems to be defining the idea using interoception, in-person social networks, and a variety of tools, both analog (notebooks, calendars) and digital. From what I gather, she's not working with rigorous science but is more interested in practices people can do to increase their personal efficacy. (Correct me if I'm wrong; I was interrupted a few times while listening.)

To answer your question, I think that the mind, being physical, exists in the body. And I'd say that the mind probably exists in the body outside of the skull, for example in the nervous system. I'm not prepared at this point to say that the mind extends outside of the body: that seems to me to be more metaphorical. If communication, processing and storage systems are all considered to be "mind", that completely redefines what it means to be a human animal and seems like a major overreach.

Quote from BrainToBeing

So, it is my personal perspective that we are running up against the limits of the human brain. We evolved for a very different life circumstance and we are failing to intellectually keep up with the perspectives applicable to today.

This is an interesting perspective that I don't think that I've heard before in this context. I tend to think of the attitudes that you mention (studiously ignoring the politics!) as a matter of degree, not kind. By which I mean that we've had similar external issues repeatedly in the past: the inventions of movable type, photography, motion pictures, radio, television, Industrial Revolution, toasters, automobiles &c... In each step of progress there are people who may refuse to address the advancement, as well as people who will make use of it without having a clue as to how the particular thing works. For instance, I could never reproduce the computer that I'm typing on, but I'm happy to use it. Then there are others who refuse to even use a computer, or a cell phone, or what have you.

So is the issue that technology has advanced beyond our biological capability to incorporate it into our understanding of the world? Or is it lack of tolerance by institutions that are threatened by it? Consider the widespread history of the church torturing and killing innovative thinkers, or thousands of years of various instances of and manifestations of political corruption.

The latter two are problems that the Epicureans have addressed in various ways from their beginning. Perhaps examining this can bring some hope that we may have tools to address the current state of affairs.

As Don mentioned in another thread, could theories of extended cognition be useful in this regard as well?

To clarify, let me rephrase the original question:

"So, to all you smart, interesting neurobilogists I ask a question: since the classical authors referenced here lived 2000+ years ago, has anything changed? What, if anything, is new in the undestanding of the functioning of life (contrasted to these classical perspectives)?"

To me, that question is so open ended as to be pointless to attempt to answer. Would it perhaps be more useful to ask what are some commonalities between then and now? After all, a case could be made that most, if not all, of contemporary western philosophy is built on the foundations laid 2000+ years ago.

Maybe there's a more specific way to ask the previous question that would be more helpful for discussion.

Quote

[58] Many translations render ἐγκύκλια as "public education", "general education", "culture", and the like; however, the word really means "ordinary" or "quotidian", so that περὶ τὰ ἐγκύκλια means "ordinary matters" or "quotidian concerns". Words for "education" and "culture" (e.g., παιδεία) do not appear in the Greek text of this saying. This is not to say that Epicurus favored the kind of enculturation that was common in ancient Greece (see for instance Vatican Sayings #45 and #46 along with Fragments #117 and #163). [back]

This from Peter Saint-Andre's translation online. The translation in the previous post caught my eye in light of recent discussions. I don't know any Greek and so can't comment further; just adding this for use in tonight's discussion.

Well done, as always!

Thee was a lot of focus on the future pleasure of the utility of fair dealing, honesty, decency and acting justly. I just want to state the obvious, which is that acting in these ways often brings immediate pleasure, irrespective of possible future utility.

Of course, this begs the question "who determines what is a 'real talent'?"

Another thing I'm noticing is that when I click on a link to a post in the Unread Posts list, it takes me to the top of the page that contains the unread post. Prior to the update it would go directly to the post, which is much more convenient when the threads get long. This is on an Android tablet; not sure about other devices.

Welcome tariq !

My recollection of The Art of Happiness is that I liked the translations but found the commentary somewhat hostile to Epicurus. That said, it's been a couple of years since I read it so my memory could be hazy.

I, too, discovered Epicurus by way of Stoicism. I was reading Cicero's On the Nature of the Gods, which is extremely hostile to Epicurus. Cicero's arguments were so over the top that they convinced me to find out more about Epicurus. And here I am, years later.

When I insert a word into text that I've typed into a post, and use autofill to insert the word, the last letter drops off of the word. It happened in a post a few minutes ago as well as in this one. I'm using an Android tablet. Not sure if it's the tablet or the new software, but it's never happened before with any software on the tablet.

Otherwise, the new layout is quite nice!

Quote from BrainToBeing

I think real ethics are internal, not external.

Agreed.

Quote from BrainToBeing

I think we achieve excellent ethics when the foundation of our behavioral choices is not "me" but "we" - involving a larger group of valued considerations.

Does this quote conflict with the previous quote? My take is that it doesn't: most people make choices which are concerned with matters involving themselves, as well as matters involving things outside of themselves. But the choices themselves are internal, including the choices as to which matters to pursue.

However I'm wondering if the second quote is suggesting that there's a way in which the external becomes internal. The Epicurean Canon relies on external inputs. Is this quote making the case for a faculty (perhaps neurological) in addition to the sensations, anticipations and feelings?

Re the poll, I use all three. I've had text inputting issues on my phone in the past; it'll be interesting to see if they disappear with this update. I never tried to figure out if they were caused by the phone or the software.

When we make choices using whatever degree of free will that's available to us, the effects of those choices form "ripples" in the deterministic fabric. These ripples then determine subsequent events up to the point at which free will occurs in those events. And so on, ad infinitum.

What are the philosophical implications of this? Or are there any? I suppose hard determinists would say that there's no free will available to us, so there are no implications. But if we do have any amount of free will, it seems to me that, over infinite time, the amount of free will would increase exponentially.

Other than a sense of agency v nihilism, what are the practical implications of this debate? I tend to get brain freeze thinking about this

Aren't emergent properties a form of randomness? Or do they fall under the idea of "if we knew enough about everything, we would see how they actually emerged"?

Does "if we knew enough about everything, then we would see how x" mean that as we learn more we will have more free will?