Posts by Mousikos

I came across this article, which offers a discussion about modern physicists' ideas on whether there is a beginning point of the universe. Hawking's no-boundary idea seems in agreement with Epicurus' understanding.

https://www.wired.com/story/cosmolog…f-the-universe/

I also use the Forum > Unread Posts link as my standard destination.

I agree with Hiram. I think there is value in saying that Epicurean Philosophy is a specific system of thought within both the Humanist and Hedonist traditions. There are specific and important differences with large parts of those wider traditions, but it is also likely that we can find common ground and allies there.

I think a friendly approach will benefit us more than an adversarial one in trying to spread the word about Epicurean Philosophy and building communities around that.

I would say it is profoundly anti-Epicurean. We should always take into account what the consequences will be.

Quote from elli

Music therapy, fragrance therapy, chromo therapy, logos therapy, choir therapy. All these are pseudosciences for our manipulation and making us anthropoids of the masses. Pseudosciences, indeed, are doing a great job for making us more idiots.

As far as music therapy goes, you are wrong. There is scientific research that shows there are valid applications of music therapy, with real, measurable results. For more information, see https://www.musictherapy.org/about/quotes/

Quote from Hiram

I suppose there are different things that are meant by “therapeutic”. Philodemus said that as far as philosophy, it heals through words, and I think I remember seeing the word logos. I take great pleasure in music, but it seems like the benefits of different kinds of music do not correlate with the benefits of memorizing the healing words of philosophy. These are specifically meant to treat concrete, specific false beliefs like fear of death and of gods, or unlimited desires. The benefits of music do not correlate to this and are non-philosophical. They are different.

Yes, it could be that Philodemus has a specific meaning of therapeutic in mind. Obviously, philosophy treating specific false ideas is completely different from music treating emotions and facilitating physical healing. Nevertheless, both are demonstrably therapeutic, in their own way.

You have a new follower.

Are there other Epicureans active on Goodreads?

Quote from Hiram

So it's not just about being anti idealism, there's a specific therapeutic utility that was being discussed in the Philodeman scroll with regards to music, and he was arguing that music could only heal the soul (through the practices of repetition and memorization, etc.) IF it contained the words of healing philosophy, which were the ones that had the potency to heal.

And this is what I completely disagree with. There is legitimate music therapy, using instrumental music, that affects moods and feelings, and facilitates physical healing. For some pointers, see https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/healing-t…ic-201511058556

To me, being a cosmopolitan and a humanist does not mean I deny the value of homeland or cultural traditions, or view people through a narrow lens of economics. To me it means that my perspective is more focused on the whole of humanity, rather than on tribal divisions. It means I can feel at home anywhere I meet like-minded people. It means I evaluate all cultures, including those of my homeland, and sift the good from the bad.

I understand the Greek need for patriotism, as they have a long history of being besieged by foreign forces. But in my view we really need to widen our perspective and strive to work together with all peoples on Earth, if we want to successfully deal with the current problems such as the climate crisis and mega-corporations trampling on human rights and concerns.

And yes, that cosmopolitan perspective needs to get embodied in local initiatives. I think we need to integrate these two poles, rather than view them as either/or.

Does that make sense?

I'm glad to be here. And yes, all the experiences I've had, good and bad, have shaped who I am today.

I don't claim to be Greek tho. I'm actually Dutch, tho I spent six years in the beautiful city of Thessaloniki. When I was there, I used to live near Moni Vlatadon, and I have fond memories of walking downhill from Ano Poli to the university or the city center. Especially on clear days when you can see Mount Olympus. And the food, and the music... I haven't been there in many years, but I would love to visit again.

I also spent some years in Finland and England. But now I'm living in China, teaching English since 2010.

So after all that, I consider myself more of a "global citizen".

Quote from Hiram

I think this is what is called "archetypes of the collective unconscious" in Jungian psychology.

Jung cited the example of newborn tiny birds from Galapagos that exhibited panic when a large plane flew over them … but there are no birds of prey that eat that species of tiny birds. Which means they must have inherited this panic instinct from ancestors from South America, who WERE eaten by Condors.

Having thought a bit more about this, I think this could be related, yes.

Has anyone else explored connections between Epicurus and Jung?

Exactly. They can both enhance happiness, and in that they are not fundamentally different. But of course they have a huge difference in magnitude, and in impact on our overall happiness.

And just to underline your last point:

Quote from Principle Doctrines 8

no pleasure is bad in itself

Quote from Cassius

I just noticed this part. It's good and i would not suggest changing it. But when reading it , it occurs to me that it's possible that it might not be clear what the "nature of knowledge" means in this context. [...] I say this largely because I am always on guard against the implication that "knowledge" is something that exists in the air as part of some network of ideal forms, or something that comes from gods, or even something that we are born with (in our anticipation discussion). I think it's more proper to think of "knowledge" as opinions formed in our minds that we are confident are true.

I am pondering if there is a better way to phrase this. I certainly wouldn't want to suggest a Platonic understanding of disembodied ideas that exist in an ideal world. But what I am trying to get at in my statement #12, is that while there is no absolute morality, that doesn't mean every moral choice is equally valid, and that we cannot make any valid statements about morality (the typical "if you're an atheist and don't believe there is a god stopping you, why don't you go around raping and killing?" argument).

Because of what we know about reality, and our naturalist understanding of it, we can formulate certain guidelines that will be generally true for all humans, even if the details vary per individual. Things like: self-delusion is bad, an exclusive focus on short-term pleasure without considering the consequences is bad, only considering your own pleasure regardless of the happiness of other people is bad, etc.

I totally agree with this article. There is no essential difference between physical, mental, and spiritual pleasures. We experience things because we have a body. Without our body we would not experience anything. Every feeling is embodied. Physical pleasure is not fundamentally different from intellectual pleasure, as we experience it in our body.

And this is also the problem I have with dualism, which often leads to undervaluing the physical experience and even demonizing our bodily nature. There is nothing inherently bad ("sinful") about enjoying the pleasures of good food or good sex. There is no "higher" form of happiness than the one we experience in our body, in this life.

That looks very interesting, Godfrey ! I've had an interest in positive psychology for years, and this seems to nicely tie in. I will have a read.

I would need to delve deeper into Epicurus' usage of prolepsis, but I cannot imagine he would have meant abstract ideas (conceptual reasoning). It seems unnecessary and unexpected to slap a word like prolepsis onto that.

Let me just mention before I head to bed, that I consider the idea of the blank slate to be scientifically indefensible. My thinking on this matter has very much been formed by Steven Pinker's book The Blank Slate.

https://stevenpinker.com/publications/blank-slate

https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_p…the_blank_slate

Instincts are similar forms of genetically transmitted knowledge (or perhaps it would be better to say behaviours). And little children appear to have a sense of fairness and justice that seems not to be learnt but innate.

This is where I'm a bit out of my depth. Reading this chapter, DeWitt's interpretation of anticipations makes total sense to me. If anyone is aware of good criticisms, please link them, so we can discuss their merits.

This is my understanding of prolepseis (anticipations) as per https://newepicurean.com/resources/libr…s-and-feelings/

In what sense do you think it is not correct?

This is my personal outline and interpretation of Epicurean philosophy:

On the nature of reality

1. Nature, being the physical universe consisting of matter, energy, and void, is all that exists. The supernatural does not exist.

2. There are no gods, in the traditional religious sense of supernatural beings that interact with our universe.

3. The mind is an emergent function of the physical body, most importantly the brain. When the body dies and disintegrates, so does the mind. There is no afterlife in which the mind survives the death of the body.

On the nature of knowledge

4. Nature is knowable. We observe it using our senses. And we use our mind to order these observations and integrate them into knowledge.

5. Our feelings of pleasure and pain inform us as to what is beneficial and what is detrimental to us.

6. We are born with certain innate ideas, such as a sense of justice. These form a kind of genetically transmitted knowledge which is beneficial to our life.

7. We should test our mental conclusions against these three sources of knowledge, and adjust them accordingly.

On the nature of the good life

8. The goal of a good life is to achieve the greatest possible happiness.

9. To enhance happiness, we should pursue pleasure, and avoid pain.

10. It may at times be necessary to accept temporary pain in order to achieve greater pleasure later, or to avoid a pleasure in order to avoid a greater pain later.

11. We should not fear death, as in death we will no longer have sensations and feelings. So, we should make the most of this life.

12. There is no absolute morality, and each person should freely make their own hedonistic calculations. That said, because of the nature of knowledge, we can make general statements about which choices would bring greater pleasure and happiness to the majority of people.

13. Virtues are only good and worth pursuing insofar as they contribute to greater happiness through avoiding pain and offering pleasure. A choice is not virtuous if it does not lead to greater happiness.

14. In order to better understand pleasure and pain, we need to study nature. A better understanding of reality will help us achieve greater happiness.

Comments?