Posts by Godfrey

I've got some monkeys typing away in my garage... I'll keep you posted.

The quote in post #1 is online at https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/app/app70.htm.

It has a link to the book on Amazon, the book is:

Ancilla to Pre-Socratic Philosophers: A Complete Translation of the Fragments in Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker Paperback, August 15, 1983 by Kathleen Freeman.

"This book is a complete translation of the fragments of the pre-Socratic philosophers given in the fifth edition of Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker."

I'm not sure what that means, since Philodemus wasn't a pre-Socratic. Diels must have used fragments from other ancients which refer to pre-Socratics since there's not much left from them.

I believe that item 4 in post #1 comes from Pyrrho and from ancient Buddhism. It certainly is cryptic!

For me, the first issue is to define what Epicurean "logic" is and where it fits into an outline. That would be necessary to teach the system to a junior high school student: to provide the complete, coherent system.

Secondly would be to contrast the Epicurean view to other views.

Rather than call it Epicurean logic, maybe "methods of inference" is a good term to use, per Philodemus.

As to placing "MOI" in an outline, it shouldn't be in the canon as it's not direct experience (as discussed in the thread linked to in post #48. But a current problem is that it’s something of an afterthought (speaking for myself). One suggestion is:

Overview of Epicurean philosophy:

1. Physics

1A. Canonic

1B. Methods of Inference (dependent upon Canonic)

1C. Natural science (dependent upon Canonic and MOI)

2. Ethics (dependent upon Physics)

This strikes me as an unintended instance in which to examine epistemological methods of inference

For starters, I would posit that there are two different prolepseis on display here as to what constitutes a poem. From there, we have evidence of an unlikely situation: an acrostic. There seem to be two opposing views on acrostics: 1) they are a relatively common and recognized technique in ancient poetry, and 2) they are purely random occurrences.

One approach to the current evidence is to blindly accept the statements of classical scholars, one of which we have among us in the person of Joshua. Personally, in this instance, this is my approach and I base it on my interactions with Joshua and the fact that he supports the assertions in the paper which are purportedly made by experts in the field.

Another, equally valid, is to look for more evidence of the use and acceptance of acrostics, and perhaps more evidence of the variety of structures in ancient poetry.

Yet another approach is to examine the odds of a given acrostic occurring and to make inferences from that.

Or one could say that we just can't know the answer to this thorny problem.

One could also say that we need to understand the motivations of each person making assertions. And to go a step further, one could try to determine if these people really exist or are programs on a supercomputer in a remote location in Utah.

This appears to be what is known of Nausiphanes' tripod, which is said to have inspired Epicurus' tripod of truth.

From Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers, by Kathleen Freeman, [1948], at sacred-texts.com p. 124

Quote

75. NAUSIPHANES OF TEOS

Nausiphanes of Teos lived in the time of Alexander, and after.

He wrote a book called The Tripod, on epistemology and method. This was said to have been the source of Epicurus’ Canon. It is preserved in epitome only, by Philodemus.

1. (The man of science has the capacity for rhetoric, even if he does not practise it).

2. (The wise man will pursue rhetoric, because honour depends on winning a reputation for cleverness in politics, rather than on the over-lauded virtues.

The wise man is he who can persuade his hearers; this power belongs to the man of science, its source being his knowledge of the facts, so that he could pass on his own convictions not only to his pupils but to any race of people. Having a knowledge of the facts, he is able to lead his audience where he wishes, because he can tell them what is to their advantage, which is what they wish to hear. The scientist has command of the best diction also: not that created by vain imagination and usage, but that based on the nature of things. He also has command of logic, without which knowledge is impossible, and is best qualified in that art indispensable to a statesman in a democracy or monarchy or any other constitution, of calculation of the future from the known facts.

The man who employs continuous discourse will be best able to employ the dialectic method and vice versa, because both depend on an accurate judgement of how to lead pupils from the known to the unknown; that is, they depend upon a knowledge of the 'right time' and 'right measure' in speaking).

3. (Nausiphanes gave 'immovability' as the goal of life, this being the name he gave to Democritus’ 'imperturbability').

4. (Of those things which appear to exist, nothing exists more than it does not exist).

Display More

Here's a link to a previous post:

Post

Thoughts On The Alleged "Fourth Leg of the Canon"

I don't have time for a long post but I wanted to start this topic with a couple of general thoughts which are prompted by our recent discussions of images in book four of Lucretius, plus the articles from the Encyclopedia Brittanica (thanks Nate) as to the development of skepticism within the Academy, as well as the Stoic/Academic interplay involving how the Stoics attempted to remain dogmatic. Let me particularly highlight this paragraph:

[…]

Now as to the Epicureans, here is the primary…

Cassius

May 3, 2021 at 8:49 AM

Quote from Cassius

I presume you're reading other recent threads like the one by Eric and my goal is that we come up with a presentation on these issues understandable enough for the average junior high age student.

You presume correctly!

Often the canon is tied to physics, which makes sense to me since the faculties are part of the material world. But the canon isn't logic. Or are you saying that logic belongs in the canon? I've understood logic, or reasoning, as a process that we use to evaluate our sensations, anticipations and feelings. Is logic/reasoning then "mental focusings"?

Googling "epistemology" gets:

Quote

"epistemology, the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The term is derived from the Greek epistēmē (“knowledge”) and logos (“reason”), and accordingly the field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge." Encyclopedia Britannica

It appears that this puts logic firmly in the canon. Does this make "the tripod of truth" into "the QuadroPod of truth"? Guess I have some reading to do.

I have a very basic "big picture" question: where does this topic fit into an outline of Epicurean philosophy?

On the one hand it seems that it belongs with the Canon, but on the other hand, logic isn't part of the Canon as I understand it. The Stoics have Physics, Logic and Ethics; we have Physics, Canonic, Ethics (or Physics/Canonic, Ethics). I'm not even sure at the moment where these outlines came from.... Do they appear in ancient texts (Diogenes Laertius, I think?) or are they modern interpretations? Could it be that a proper EP outline is Physics/Canonic, Logic, Ethics? Are the basic outlines of EP and Stoicism actually the same, just with different ideas in each topic? Or is this a muddling of EP by later Epicureans who were arguing with the Stoics?

Wouldn't placing this topic of signs and methods of inference into the larger outline of the philosophy be a good first step toward developing an outline of Epicurean "logic"? I think it might be helpful in assisting us to remember why we're grappling with this difficult and rather distasteful , but important, topic in the first place.

De Rerum Natura is the gift that keeps on giving.... The attached paper discusses references in the poem to Aratus, Homer and others as well as some of the related cross-fertilization between ancient poets. It also discusses Lucretius' use of the theme of light and his references to Epicurus as the sun and himself as the moon, among other things.

I just started reading it to find out what an acrostic is, but it sucked me right in and totally exposed my ignorance of the classics.

Glad you enjoyed it Joshua , you're quite welcome.

From reading the article it seems like there are interesting connections to be drawn, such as the solar plexus having an association with sight and the throat having an association with listening. I don't go in for the woo, but there are connections throughout the body that we don't normally think of and which can perhaps deepen understanding of certain pleasures and pains in some instances.

The attached paper goes beyond lines from movies to discuss two entire movies. I've watched Harold and Maude a couple of times over the years but I'm not familiar with Bad Boy Bubby. I can't remember if there are any quotable quotes in H&M or not....

The attached paper may add something to your discussion of poetry (although I haven't read it). It looks like something Joshua in particular may find interesting.

It's a chapter of a book on Georgics, and from a quick viewing it appears to touch on Epicurus' critique of Homer and Virgil's critique of Lucretius.

Coincidentally, I just read this very short story by Lucian which deals with this issue:

Swans and Amber | Electrum [The Lucian of Samosata Project]

11. Has a deep and abiding sense of awe at the material universe and our place in it.

EricR personally I find PN03 very comforting. Over my lifetime I've spent years trying unsuccessfully to come to terms with the supernatural aspects of various religions and philosophies. It was only upon discovering EP that I felt like I'd "come home".

I certainly don't know that all is atoms and void, but the best scientific observation over centuries has failed to verify a supernatural phenomenon. If one was to be verified, then I would do my best to understand how that impacts my world view. Actually, "atoms and void" is now understood as matter/energy and void ( Martin is much more qualified to discuss this than I am!) but, as I see it it still precludes the supernatural.

As I have read some of the ancient arguments for and against atomism over the last few years, I've become increasingly unconvinced by the arguments against. For me, such arguments, at least in the west, are often more concerned with political power than the search for truth. Whether East or West, however, I find that EP is the philosophy that has most accurately anticipated the development and conclusions of modern science and thus can provide a relevant guide to living well.

Even with no supernatural, there's still no end to the mystery of life and the universe! For me, understanding the universe as atoms and void only removes the myth making. I can still enjoy the myths as myths, and often learn from them. But I find an enormous sense of wonder and joy in living in a material universe in which I am an emergent property.

Quote from Kalosyni

But when it comes to purely mental pleasures, then instead of the phrase "calculus of advantage" maybe the phrase "calculus of enjoyment"? -- Such as when deciding which hobbies to pursue, since we only have limited time.

Personally, I'd replace the word "calculus". "Consideration" maybe? Although "choices and rejections" per Don might be the most historically accurate, and it seems like the best phrase to me. It describes exactly what is being dealt with rather than trying to invent a term for the process. As per Epicurus, it should be immediately clear what our words mean.

Excellent presentation Cassius!

Christos seems to have a nice mix of modern science grounded in ancient philosophy. Do you know anything about the English translations of the books he mentioned in answer to your question? Particularly their titles and availability. It sounds like the only one currently available is the book on Jefferson, but I'm really curious to see what they cover in their textbook.

That was an out-of-left-field example of calculating something nebulous; I was thinking of it as an example of the issues that I have with "hedonic calculus". Joshua most ably listed the types of factors that I would consider. How can you calculate 6, 7, 8 or even 5? On the other hand, it's relatively straightforward to calculate highest net worth individual: just add up the dollars. To me, "hedonic calculus" implies a straightforwardness that is deceptive, and as per Joshua's list is a great example of the shortcomings of utilitarianism vs EP.

There are times when it's useful to make lists of pros and cons of various options that one is considering. One could even attempt to weight them to account for one's feelings and intuitions. There is information to be gleaned from this exercise, but often the conclusion reached by doing such an exercise is overridden by one's feelings and intuitions (at least in my experience!)

While there some situations where you can just add up hedons and dolors, often it's not that simple and almost always the "equation" needs confirmation from the Feelings. I gravitate toward the phrase "choices and rejections" as it seems to me to imply a more open-ended process than "hedonic calculus". At the same time it seems to me to be a more direct statement of the actual process. I guess the Epicureans were on to something!

For a thought experiment, how do you calculate who is the single poorest person in the world?