Posts by Godfrey

This link popped up in my feed recently and I just got around to reading it. It's an excerpt from a little girl's school journal in the 1930s; the portion of her journal dealing with a field trip to Notre Dame cathedral. Just (I hope) an innocent counterpoint to the discussion above.

http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/notes-fro…-dame-de-paris/

Quote

just to pick on doors, it seems to me that I have a series of mental images that cone to mind on hearing door - or most other words - so what is it about "first"?

Excellent question! Are there any words for which everyone can agree on a first mental image? This I find very puzzling, but I haven't had time to give it serious thought these last couple of days.

I was thinking that "door" is pretty straightforward, but "light" could be what you described, or a fixture on the ceiling that allows one to see things in a dark room, or a measure of weight, or a measure of intensity of color, or a subject that is easy to comprehend, etc etc...

Joshua I was basically going to the same place as you, but in a much less erudite manner

The door with light shining through is a nice image!

I'm thinking there are two issues: the issue of origin and the issue of use.

Lucretius seems to be describing origin when he speaks of the urge to communicate and debates against one person coming up with language and teaching it to others. From the origin, languages then could almost be considered like species as they would arise differently under different circumstances and continue to develop from those specific circumstances.

The issue of use is what I think Epicurus is referring to in the "first mental image" excerpt. If I may, I'd like to try to examine the subject with two specific instances to discuss, neither of which is part of the literature and both of which are contemporary to us. Question: what is your first mental image associated with

1) "door"

2) "light"

It would appear from Lucretius and from observation that there is a prolepsis of language, in terms of an innate desire to communicate and a "pencil sketch" of how to do so given our biology.

The Nietzsche excerpt, to me, does not relate to prolepseis but it useful to clarify the difference between a prolepsis and a concept. It illustrates how, for instance, "cow" becomes a concept, which I think we've determined is not a prolepsis (at least by our non academic reasoning). Similarly the Lucretius excerpts illustrate what a prolepsis could be, although I don't know that I've ever heard a prolepsis of language referred to so that could be open to discussion.

Quote

First of all, Herodotus, we must grasp the ideas attached to words, in order that we may be able to refer to them and so to judge the inferences of opinion or problems of investigation or reflection, so that we may not either leave everything uncertain and go on explaining to infinity or use words devoid of meaning.

For this purpose it is essential that the first mental image associated with each word should be regarded, and that there should be no need of explanation, if we are really to have a standard to which to refer a problem of investigation or reflection or a mental inference.

This is where it gets confusing to me, particularly in light of the recent thread on the gods and the discussion there of the words "immortal" and "incorruptible". One issue is that so much philosophy originates in languages other than English, so there's the added complexity of translation (for those of us who are primarily monolingual). Another issue more directly related to the above quote is that people seem to have conflicting first mental images of many words. So how does one burrow down to the first mental image of a given word?

Certainly glad I did catch on to him!

Starting with Diogenes Laertius is a good way to get an overview, then reading DeWitt next would give an in-depth view. Then the two Ciceros; I might even read these before DeWitt.

The first I ever heard of Epicurus was when I read Cicero's On The Nature of the Gods. I was trying to come to grips with the Stoic idea of providence... after reading Vellius I haven't touched another Stoic text! So this and On Ends could come before DeWitt, and then when reading DeWitt one would have read most of the basics.

Reading Philebus before Lucretius seems interesting to me as it dovetails well with DeWitt's commentary and really points out the contrast between Epicurus and Plato. By this point one might be ready for Lucretius....

I really wish that I'd had a list like this to work through when I started exploring EP. I did use Elemental Epicureanism (and still do) and Hiram's "getting started" page, but with so little background in philosophy I had no sense of the scope of the texts or the relationships between them.

If this is "my" thread I can only say that I'm learning as much or more than anyone from it and I'm quite grateful for and impressed by everybody's posts!

Both the rise of religion and the subject of "images" belong with this topic and I for one would like to pursue them. Maybe they could be split off into "part 2" and "part 3" threads, if only because this one is getting pretty long.

To focus on "immortal", VS 78 and the end of the letter to Menoeceus mention immortal goods. In the Greek text on Monadnock each of these as well as PD 1 have what appear to be slightly different spellings of the word. I'm clueless about Greek; does anyone know if these variations have any significance to the discussion? (I might not even be looking at the right words, please pardon my ignorance if that's the case.)

I had no idea that the Mormons believe such things!

Just from my reasoning it seems that the gods evolved, are born, and are quite smart about being blissful and staying alive. If they, individually, extend back an eternity then they'd have to be a separate class along with atoms and void, which doesn't seem to be the case.

"Immortal" is a perplexing word. I just Googled the definition and most sources define it as "deathless". This has no implication of extending back in time. But to cloud the issue, one online dictionary says "living forever", which seems ambiguous in this regard. Another definition is "one who's fame is lasting". But these are all definitions of the English word, not the Greek.

Actually, for us moderns, many innovations of Epicurus are common sense. So the ones that aren't (like the gods) uncomfortably challenge us perhaps in a way that he challenged his contemporaries.

According to DeWitt, Epicurus never described the gods as "immortal" but as "incorruptible". He goes on to say:

"The reasoning behind this doctrine of incorruptibility is readily discerned. From the doctrine that nothing exists except atoms and void it follows that the bodies of the gods must be corporeal. Gods are zoa, "animate beings." They are thus units in the ascending order of Nature, as is man. Being in this order and corporeal, they cannot be deathless. If deathlessness were inherent in their nature, they would be in another class by themselves. Since they do belong in the same class as man, it is a logical necessity to think of their incorruptibility as by some means preserved. Since in the cosmos of Epicurus, unlike that of Plato, this incorruptibility lacked a superior being to guarantee its continuance, the sole possibility was that the gods preserved it for themselves by their own vigilance. Thus it must be discerned that just as the happiness of man is self-achieved, so the happiness of the gods is self-preserved."

This brings to mind images of animals wandering the savanna, nomadic tribes, space opera. Also images such as "two faces or a vase?" or "young lady or witch?"

Like many innovations of Epicurus, understanding his take on the gods involves a new way of seeing. Personally, I feel like I just got a new pair of glasses and am still tripping when I descend a staircase.

Yes, the more we discuss various aspects of the philosophy, the clearer the ideas become. There's so much more than is initially evident and it gets more interesting the more I get into it.

And the gods are definitely a juicy topic with which to deepen one's understanding!

Quote

To be clear, I do not believe Epicurus was lying or trying to hedge his religious beliefs.

I agree with this as well.

As a non-philosopher, I'm working my way from a superficial understanding to a deeper understanding of the philosophy. The theory has been put out there that Epicurus was playing it safe on the gods, which is why I asked about that in my initial post. Now I can see the evidence is such that it puts the lie to that idea.

Quote

Lots of these words have multiple meanings but to focus on "required" -- required for what?

Required to exist.

Also in the interest of deepening my understanding of EP, I'm wrestling with the question of whether or not believing in gods is a necessary part of the philosophy. As an atheist from a culture that does not seriously recognize polytheism, it's challenging to adopt a belief in gods. Relating to what I said in my initial post, I think it's a serious question to consider the place of the gods in EP and some evidence of this is the amount of thought given to this by "professional" philosophers.

Diogenes is quite explicit in spelling out various misconceptions of the gods, and I think that these are readily acceptable to anyone practicing EP. And he and Epicurus both state that gods exist. As far as I have gone with this is that it is probable that godlike beings as generally described by Epicurus exist and that the "idealist" versus the "realist" interpretation makes the most sense to me.

Obviously this isn't a superficial topic. I'm finding this discussion very illuminating, apologize if I've offended anyone, and look forward to its continuing.

Hiram, I was actually reading your linked essay, among other things, before starting this thread and was coming to similar conclusions as you did.

As I'm currently understanding the gods, there are several options, including:

- They're theorized from the hierarchy of beings and are probable advanced beings in an infinite universe

- We have a prolepsis of gods. But why couldn't this be simply a concept, similar to justice? To me, this prolepsis doesn't necessitate corporeality. Does a prolepsis mature through various stages (if I'm not mistaken this is DeWitt's take) and if so, wouldn't it be affected by culture?

- The gods are poetry.

None of these, to me, say that the gods are necessary. This goes to Long's idea that Epicurus' necessity is for proper conditions, not an end result. So some version of gods are possible given these conditions, even probable, but are not required.

The Long essay brings significant nuance to the discussion of chance and necessity. Key takeaways for me:

- Necessity for Epicurus is that certain conditions must be met in order for a given thing to happen, as opposed to the idea that the given thing must happen.

- The swerve has an exponentially greater impact on the atoms of the mind than on atoms of standard matter. This is because (as pointed out in today's Daily Lucretian) atoms composing mind are round, lightweight and quick to move as opposed to standard atoms which are rough, heavier and slow to move. This explains why we have free will while the universe is not in total chaos.

Makes perfect sense, but I hadn't made the connections before reading the essay.

Quote from Cassius

The system is not at all "chance" in the sense of chaotic, but is governed by what amounts to "natural law" that arises from the properties of the atoms and the qualities of the bodies that they form.

This is what I was thinking, except I missed the point that the "natural law" arises from properties of atoms. Quite a big oversight on my part: I was imagining the "natural law" arising after the combinations of atoms.

Quote from Cassius

Did Dewitt say that there are MORE immortals than mortals?

On double checking, he said "cannot be less than" the number of mortals. Can you explain his reasoning on this? This is one of the things that baffles me about isonomy.

I'm off to read Long now.

There is so much here to digest, I'll try to narrow down my comments and questions as much as possible to help wrap my head around things. (Cassius, your comments on pleasure are quite interesting and could make another thread in themselves!) For the most part I totally understand and agree with the points made. I'd like to focus on 1) an infinite system, 2) chance, and 3) isonomy.

1) In EP, the number of atoms is infinite. The types of atoms are innumerable. If my thinking is correct, the types of combinations of atoms would therefore be innumerable but not infinite (innumerable type x other innumerable type = seriously innumerable). If the types of combinations were mathematically infinite (although it could be said that, practically speaking, they are infinite) then the probability of any given thing existing in the universe would be 100% and if I'm not mistaken this doesn't seem to be the case in EP.

2) Regarding chance, my understanding is that chance is involved in the combinations of atoms. Once compounds are formed there are properties that affect future combinations, but as a general idea chance is a factor in the Epicurean universe (but not in the life of a wise man). If it were not a factor, then all would be by necessity and such is not the case.

3) Isonomy is where I get completely confused. DeWitt lists three aspects of isonomy: "first, that in an infinite universe perfection is bound to exist as well as imperfection; that is, 'that there must be some surpassing being, than which nothing is better'; second, that the number of these beings, the gods, cannot be less than the number of mortals; and third, that in the universe at large the forces of preservation always prevail over the forces of destruction."

DeWitt also mentions an isonomy of values as well as of things. Perfection and imperfection are values, but they are ideas of man and at the scale of man and not at the scale of the universe, to my understanding. Otherwise, wouldn't they be Platonic Ideals? And how can "equitable apportionment" occur in a chance system? Is the reason for more gods than mortals because the forces of preservation must exceed the forces of destruction in an everlasting universe? I'm completely on board with his third premise of preservation exceeding destruction. My understanding, however, is that that would apply only to the atoms. All else is compounds and is subject to dissolution.

The plot thickens! Yes I'm planning to continue this discussion. Tonight is date night though, so it won't be for a while

Thanks Nate and Cassius! Lots digest....