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.
[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!
I think real ethics are internal, not external.
Agreed.
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?
Being good or being eudaimonic seems to me to necessarily begin with the self. The only way that we can affect ourselves or others is through our own agency. However that doesn't imply that we direct our actions strictly toward ourselves.
Part of the beauty of this particular philosophy, to me, is that it places the self within a view of all that is. And it provides us with effective tools with which to increase our agency as well as our eudaimonia. Each of us grapples with measuring the limits of our effectiveness in a wide variety of realms. The sensations, anticipations and feelings provide input. The feelings in particular provide guidance: will pursuing "x" increase my agency (which is pleasurable) or make me miserable (which will decrease my effectiveness)? This guidance serves to join the self with the other in, arguably, the most effective manner.
Thanks Bryan ! I think we're on the same page.
This morning I listened to the Dr. Glidden interview again. He explicitly states that prolepseis are not infallible, which makes sense to me. But in this way he repeatedly separates them from sensations and feelings while leaving them in the Canon. He may have gone as far as to say that they're not true, but I'm interpreting that as not infallible. Riffing on this I get the notion that the three elements of the Canon all vary in degrees of infallibility:
- Sensations are true, but not infallible (as in the bent stick in the water, or the rounded or square tower)
- Anticipations can be true or false, so not infallible (as in the snake or stick illustration)
- Feelings are true and infallible. But they need to be carefully attended to in order to properly hear them (particularly wrt to those who incorrectly think that there is a "neutral zone".)
(I'm using infallible here to mean "a reliable source of information".)
The above is some very helpful explanation and great analogies. Particularly comparing the technology of casting a net to focusing a camera lens: that's a great way to illustrate the 2300 year time difference.
One thing that I'm still confused about: is this focusing conscious? To my understanding prolepseis are pre-conscious in a way that might be analogous to a feeling being pre-conscious. Then we use conscious thinking to examine the data provided by the senses, prolepseis and feelings.
My understanding, again, is that the mind does tons of focusing and processing without our conscious awareness. I've been interpreting this as the activity that generates prolepseis. However I can also see that the focusing I'm doing now, consciously, could be considered an activity that generates a prolepsis. But now I'm getting confused, because my line of thought is leading to a prolepsis being both a process and a result. And also "learning".
I need to go back and review from the beginning of this thread. Meanwhile, any further explanations would be much appreciated!
Here's a post after a webinar with Voula Tsouna that tries to point out some of the issues:
Bryan I'm interested in hearing more of your thinking on visual focus of the mind. This seems to be a topic of some controversy, and one of which my understanding is pretty limited. What do you mean by coalescing them with the anticipations? Would they then be a type of anticipation? And what exactly is the visual focus of the mind? Conscious, unconscious, dreams...? Is the Greek epibolai equivalent to these? How does the Greek word relate to the Greek phrase that you posted above?
And I love that Cassius finally got irritated with Cicero.
One thing that is commonly missed is that EP is a philosophy of personal responsibility. In a world in which there is no supernatural god, no afterlife, no absolute forms or essences, how do we avoid nihilism and live our lives? This is the context in which pleasure and pain are the guides. Some people choose abstract ideas such as virtue for a guide, but what is that other than a mental construct? Some people choose sex, drugs and R&R, but I question whether this is being aware of their pain or simply papering over it.
Pleasure and pain are innate, biological tools for guidance. To properly use them one must delve into the nuances of their own awareness and come to terms with what they find, keeping in mind that there is no neutral state. Often what appears to be neutral, when examined, contains pains and pleasures that we've just never noticed. That's where the real work takes place.
Fascinating! It's interesting (and reassuring) how closely our experience follows the biology. We've occasionally discussed, mostly anecdotally, the difference between "pain" and "suffering". For example if I have an injury I may eventually notice that I'm avoiding doing certain things, even though doing them doesn't actually hurt. Or I'll anticipate an action being painful and tense up, thereby making it more painful than it would be otherwise. I'm thinking here of the injury as being "pain" and the avoiding or anticipating as being or causing "suffering".
How do desires fit into this evolutionary picture of pains, or do they? Are desires, biologically, considered pains or are they completely different? Philosophically, they seem to be a type of pain and yet, at the same time, they seem to be something quite different.
Also, is a complete absence of pain something that is considered neurologically possible while maintaining full consciousness?
My thinking is that, eventually, it would be most interesting to get an outline of how pleasure, pain and desire operate, together and separately, then perhaps dig into details from that point. But in my ignorance I might be overly ambitious about such a complex subject....
