Posts by Godfrey

I can't comment on the home page.... As for how I use the site, I've got the "unread posts" page bookmarked; that's my entry point to everything here.

This article is in this morning's paper and it struck me as really cool for anyone here who's a sci-fi nerd. It also is a great example, for a non-scientist such as me, of the enormous amount of tedious work that can be involved in scientific progress.

UCLA is asking for the public’s help in finding signs of extraterrestrial intelligence

UCLA is asking for the public's help in finding signs of extraterrestrial intelligence

Are we alone in the universe? Researchers at UCLA are trying to answer this question by asking citizen scientists to analyze signals captured by a giant radio…

www.latimes.com

There is a link within the article that leads to the UCLA website where you can participate. Or just look at the task involved, which is interesting conceptually but extremely tedious to do for any length of time.

VS29. Speaking freely in my study of what is natural, I prefer to prophesize about what is good for all people, even if no one will understand me, rather than to accept common opinions and thereby reap the showers of praise that fall so freely from the great mass of men. Saint-Andre translation

All in all, I'd say she made quite a good presentation in defense of Epicurus.

I like where this is going, and it brings to mind the "idealist" interpretation of the gods. I'm curious if any of the articles on that subject mention PD01 or any other PDs that might be relevant.

Quote from Don

[82] But mental tranquillity* means being released from all these troubles and cherishing a continual remembrance of the highest and most important truths.

*ἀταραξία ataraxia (literally spelled ataraksia)

This reads to me like a definition....

May I posit that the musk ox is actually pursuing pleasure and not tolerating pain out on the tundra? I get this from time spent with Milo the Alaskan Malamute. He prefers spending his time in the snow, in below zero temperatures, in a snowstorm. He'll hang inside with his people and other dogs, but given the choice, he'll go for the snow.

Of course this is no knock on the musk ox. It may even make it more Epicurean! I'm just questioning this particular analogy

Quote from Kalosyni

So happiness is something else beyond pleasure.

This seems problematic to me. And it's also the crux of the issue: is happiness something beyond pleasure?

Quote

--Both physical and mental pleasures

--Assurance of security in the future (basic necessities and safety)

--Freedom from fear of death and God(s)

--Physical health

Looking at this, I'd say physical health and pleasure aren't necessarily necessary for happiness, but mental pleasures are. Now, that would imply that there's a ranking of pleasures involved in happiness. However, I don't subscribe to a ranking of pleasures but to classifications of desires. This leads me to the thought that happiness is, perhaps, a static mental pleasure.

Quote from Kalosyni

A happy life can still feel happy even when immediate pleasure isn't occuring, and I think that it really points to "happiness" being mostly an internal story about whether or not we are feeling pleased about the way our life is currently unfolding.

This sounds right, although I would tend to use "state" instead of "story." And this of course leads to the discussion of ataraxia and eudaimonia, and whether they are fancy pleasures which are more important than pleasure, or whether they are subsets of pleasure.

If I understand correctly, Kalosyni 's quote above is related to Don 's description of a background state of happy homeostasis. I think that that's necessary, but not sufficient, for the fullness of pleasure. Dabbling in prudent extravagance can fill the tank in that regard (referring to one of Cassius 's former illustrations.

A: Pleasure

Why: Happiness is a type of pleasure, whereas pleasure isn't necessarily a type of happiness. It seems to me that pleasure has a pretty specific definition in EP, but happiness is less well defined.

To establish to our own satisfaction that we exist, Eikadistes 's post #3 above seems to me to be the best answer. It goes directly to PD02, and I imagine that most of us take that as a basic fact of existence.

"Sum, sentio, cognosco", or something along those lines? The idea here is that we exist, and we work from that basis. No ergo involved. Maybe add "I act" to the end: sum, sentio, cognosco, ago.

(I don't know Latin, so my word choices may be goofy...)

Quote from Cassius

You can have all the shared values in the world and still in the end not "click" with someone. So I would think that aspect of friendship would have to be considered in these discussions too.

That was probably a frequent topic of frank speech back in the Garden!

Quote from Don

Emily's consistent emphasis on "extravagant desires aren't bad" is refreshing!!

To further this comment: as I recall, she mentioned that the extravagant desires are where the real work of the philosophy is done. This line of thinking agrees with my thinking that these desires are the "sweet spot" of working with the philosophy, so that makes me happy

There are some "moments," but she generally gets back to clarify them in good fashion.

Emily Austin's interview with The Next Big Idea podcast dropped today. It's a great interview and quite favorable to Epicurus. Rufus (the interviewer) mentions some other authors that he's interviewed on the podcast and that some of us have read, so I was quite pleased that he made the connections. Definitely check it out!

The Next Big Idea - Wondery | Premium Podcasts

Also on Google podcasts, Apple podcasts, etc.

Next Big Idea Podcast with Rufus Griscom | Podcast

The Next Big Idea Podcast, with Rufus Griscom, groundbreaking ideas with the power to change the way you see the world. Part of the LinkedIn Podcast Network

nextbigideaclub.com

Quote from Nate

(unless there was a trend ancient poets adopted of heavily employing repetition as a rhetorical technique)

This is what I'm curious about, but totally ignorant. Any thoughts Joshua ?

Humphries does use "we" at line 112 (not 102). That doesn't bother me, though. It's in the midst of describing erroneous views of religion, and leading into the exposition on "nothing comes from nothing", where it's eventually made quite clear that everything is atoms and void.

Humphries:

"Our starting-point shall be this principle:

Nothing at all is never born from nothing

By the gods' will. Ah, but men's minds are frightened

Because they see, on earth and in the heaven,

Many events whose causes are to them

Impossible to fix; so, they suppose,

The gods'will is the reason. As for us,

Once we have seen that Nothing comes from nothing,

We shall perceive with greater clarity

What we are looking for, whence each thing comes,

How things are caused, and no "gods' will" about it.

There are also lots of images of Epicurus that turn up in a Google search of Lucretius