Posts by Godfrey

Thanks for the response Onenski .

Quote from Onenski

...how do an epicurean find eudaimonia?: recognizing his place in the universe, studying nature, moderating desires, looking for pleasures, avoiding pain/suffering, feeling satisfied, enjoying time with friends. Is that contradictory with free will skepticism? If you think so, you can help me in developing my understanding both of free will skepticism and of epicureanism by pointing out those contradictions.

The biggest practical contradiction, in my mind, has to do with the Canon and methods of inference. If we don't use proper reasoning based on our sensations, anticipations and feelings, then we can't form correct conclusions.

As I understand the determining of opinions to be true or false, based on Philodemus (and I'm not sure that I understand this very well) there is confirmation (also called attestation), and contradiction (also called contestation). True equals confirmed and not contradicted. False equals not confirmed and contradicted. Conjectural equals awaiting confirmation/contradiction. Based on this, I would say that denying free agency is false, based on our perceptions. Or at best conjectural.

From Diogenes Laertius 10.32; Mensch translation:

...the fact that our perceptions exist guarantees the truth of our sensations; for seeing and hearing are as real to us as feeling pain.” Hence, it is from phenomena that we must draw inferences about nonevident realities. For all our thoughts are derived from sensation, either by contact, analogy, resemblance, or synthesis (with some assistance from reasoning). And the delusions of madmen, as well as the visions we see in sleep, are real, since they have effects; whereas what is unreal has no effect.

From Philodemus, On signs 34.29–36.17 Long and Sedley translation 1987:

(1) Those who attack sign-inference by similarity do not notice the difference between the aforementioned [senses of ‘in so far as’], and how we establish the ‘in so far as’ premise, such as, for instance, that man in so far as he is man is mortal…. (2) For we establish the necessary connexion of this with that from the very fact that it has been an observed concomitant of all the instances which we have encountered, especially as we have met a variety of animals belonging to the same type which while differing from each other in all other respects all share such-and-such common characteristics. (3) Thus we say that man, in so far as and in that he is man, is mortal, because we have encountered a wide variety of men without ever finding any variation in this kind of accidental attribute, or anything that draws us towards the opposite view. (4) So this is the method on which the establishment of the premise rests, both for this issue and for the others in which we apply the ‘in so far as’ and ‘in that’ construction – the peculiar connexion being indicated by the fact that the one thing is the inseparable and necessary concomitant of the other. (5) The same is not true in the case of what is established merely by the elimination of a sign. But even in these cases, it is the fact that all the instances which we have encountered have this as their concomitant that does the job of confirmation. For it is from the fact that all familiar moving objects, while having other differences, have it in common that their motion is through empty spaces, that we conclude the same to be without exception true also in things non-evident. And our reason for contending that if there is not, or has not been, fire, smoke should be eliminated, is that smoke has been seen in all cases without exception to be a secretion from fire. (6) Another error which they make is in not noticing our procedure of establishing that no obstacle arises through things evident. For the existence of chance and of that which depends on us is not sufficient ground for accepting the minimal swerves of atoms: it is necessary to show in addition that nothing else self-evident conflicts with the thesis.

Quote from Onenski

The possible practical problems that one may find in a metaphysical or physical conclusion are not reasons to deny that conclusion

I agree with this if the conclusion is true, as described above. The reason that I asked about how to live with eudaimonia if you believe in hard determinism is that I'm genuinely curious how that would work.

Quote from Onenski

Finally, how do an epicurean find eudaimonia?: recognizing his place in the universe, studying nature, moderating desires, looking for pleasures, avoiding pain/suffering, feeling satisfied, enjoying time with friends. Is that contradictory with free will skepticism?

I honestly don't understand how you can achieve eudaimonia doing these things if you believe that you have no free will. Is the answer that you just go ahead and do them, realizing that there's not really a "you" that's doing them, and find eudaimonia in that? I'll have to ponder that for a while....

Onenski I'd like to "swerve" away from theory and metaphysics for a moment and ask: Can, and how can, one find eudaimonia in their life if they believes in hard determinism?

As Bryan notes, determinism is counter to lived experience. This implies that in order to live pleasantly with a deterministic philosophy one must negate one's perceptions, which seems to me to be problematic.

From watching the video above in post #51, it seems that even Sapolsky has trouble with this aspect of determinism.

Kalosyni thanks for your post #51! I've had both of those guy's books on my list, but this may save me from reading them Not my preferred method of delving into a subject, but in this case, for me, it seems to be just right.

So much to read, so little time....

Carry on.

Oops, I just read the podcast thread and see that this has already been brought up

There's also the complementary matter of a successful Epicurean living like a god among men. Since a god is blessed and imperturbable (or incorruptible, or immortal), this would imply that an Epicurean can be happy (or whatever word is most appropriate) all of the time.

For me, reclaiming words such as "spiritual" is a valuable exercise. There is much to be gained, I think, from spiritual and religious practices. I certainly can do so on my own, with my own conceptions, but discussing these subjects in a community such as this has the potential to add a degree of richness to the ideas that I might not come up with on my own. There are also genuine differences, I'm quite sure, between what I've come up with for myself and what others have done. We may not all agree on our interpretations, yet we can all learn from the differences, one can hope.

So when I ask questions about the meaning of words, or post in general, I do so not to stir the pot but out of genuine curiosity. If I have nothing constructive to say, I don't post (well, at least not knowingly; I'm sure I have my share of useless posts ).

Happy Friday all!

Quote from Nate

Of course not. We're Epicureans. Why is this even an issue?

Relax. If we're trying to settle on a definition, we need to rule out the obvious to begin.

Quote from Nate

Why are we so uncomfortable with words that Christians have appropriated?

That's a good question. In appropriating certain words, Christians, Jews, Muslims, eastern religions/philosophies, new age folks and others who far outnumber us have determined the common usage of the words for the bulk of society. As I stated previously, we all come from varied upbringings, and in these settings were likely indoctrinated with the revised meanings of the appropriated words. So it would seem to be important to define our terms. It shouldn't be difficult, but without doing so we leave the door open for misunderstandings.

For me, the larger issue here is how to precisely define the terms "religion" and "spirituality" so that we can be sure that we're not talking past each other. This is perhaps more of a practical than theoretical issue.

Does spirituality imply a spirit separate from the body? Does it imply a god? Does it relate to one's mental well-being, without any supernatural implications? In the larger populace outside of this forum, it seems to depend on who you're talking to. And we all (I presume) have spent far more of our years outside of this forum than inside, thus we have a variety of preconceptions of what spirituality actually is.

Personally, I would begin to define spirituality as "connectedness" and perhaps (or perhaps leading to) mental well-being. Having written this, I see that "connectedness" may get to the heart of the lack of clarity: connected to what? For me, I would say connected to nature and its grandeur, to community, to family, to an understanding of my place in the cosmos. With the explicit exclusion of any supernatural or mystical realms.

Does this definition make sense to anyone else? Am I missing something major? Does it need fine-tuning?

This is a fascinating topic about which I know nothing. Thanks Cyrano for posting and Cassius for running down the questions that were going through my mind!

A couple of quick thoughts....

To my knowledge, any religion that has been around for 2000 years has divided into numerous (innumerable?) branches. I sometimes lament that EP doesn't have a continuous history, but if it did, it would most likely have many branches as well. In fact they might not all call themselves "Epicurean". Maybe they'd go by "hedonist", "utilitarian", "atomists" or who knows what else.

As for a lack of structure or a lack of exercises: I go back and forth on this, but at the moment I'm thinking that a philosophy is a way of learning how to think about the world and one's place in it. Epicurus lived in a world which laid the groundwork for the world we're living in. What we have from him is a worldview and a way of approaching philosophical problems, and this forum is a great place to study, discuss, and sharpen our thinking. To me that's the main meal, any additional structure or exercises are condiments.

Just as a general point: in ancient Rome as well as in this forum, I imagine that there are Epicureans all over the political spectrum. So the question isn't whether or not certain political actions made a certain historical figure an Epicurean, but how various Epicureans lived their philosophy. Unfortunately it would seem to be that what we have to go on is the historical record and not the philosophical affiliation of various figures.

One source that comes to mind is Epicurean Philosophy: An introduction from the "Garden of Athens" edited by Christos Yapijakis. This is a compilation of a decade of recent essays from a present day group in Athens; a couple of the essays talk about a fourth criterion.

The ancient sources escape me at the moment....

Quote from shahabgh66

* I could not find a reference to check whether this very claim is scientifically valid or not.

To paraphrase TauPhi, the original claim doesn't seem to be scientifically valid. To my limited understanding, the system producing these hormones is always working, even though we may not be conscious of it at a given moment.

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.