Posts by Joshua

It is a very large subject, Cassius! There's enough here for a lifetime of close reading. My little Latin pocket Dictionary needs an upgrade, though

I've been going through Lucretius line by line in Latin. (Latin Per Diem on YouTube is an excellent resource for this if you're curious.) I noticed an interesting pattern in the early lines;

Quote

Aeneadum genetrix, hominum divomque voluptas,

alma Venus, caeli subter labentia signa

quae mare navigerum, quae terras frugiferentis

concelebras...

The verb concelebras clearly acts on mare and terras as the objects. But the word also seems to echo aurally (to my ear at least) the earlier phrase, caeli subter labentia signa. (Under the sliding signs of heaven [i.e. the stars]). I spent four years studying poetry, and it's possible I'm reading too much into this; but it seems to me that the poet is attempting to draw a connection between these two elements in the text. Note the significant consonants.

Caeli subter LaBentia Signa

ConceLeBraS

If there is a connection, it's a fascinating one. Concelebras means "cause to teem" or "cause to be filled with", here in reference to Venus filling the sea and land with life. But the subtle echo with "the sliding stars of heaven" might stretch the verb here, to include the indirect object. Thus, under my new interpretation, he is hinting that Venus (meaning generative passion) also "caused to teem" with life the other worlds!

As a side note; I've tried to "crack" Latin in a number of different ways over the years, but I've never studied it with so much pleasure as when I study Lucretius. My process here is to

1. Memorize sections of text

2. Learn to "read" each sentence in Latin for understanding, in Latin.

3. Work through the passage throughout the day (like when I'm driving), saying each word slowly and really "seeing" it in my mind. So when I read mare navigerum, I "see" the sea laden with ships instead of thinking "sea laden with ships" in English in my head.

And even if I never learn enough Latin to read Cicero, I will in compensation always have a little Lucretius wherever I go. It's been great fun!

-josh

Cassius Here's that¹

Godfrey I have taken the easy way out, haven't I.

The place to begin here is in separating the content of the claim from the sensation of the claimant. I am far from denying the mystical experience as a sensation. If you experienced something incredible while you were on acid, my explanation will be simple; that's the sensation the brain experiences while on acid. The sensation is genuine. But the "vision", far from imparting something intelligible, merely reveals the physical nature of the mind (or 'soul', if we prefer). Consciousness emerges from the neurochemistry of the brain. All we had to do to alter the mind, was to alter the neurochemistry.

When neurologists scan the brains of accomplished Buddhist monks in meditation, they see interesting things. Unusual patterns of activity, suggesting that these practitioners are able to exploit neuroplasticity² so that compassion is their native response rather than fear, contempt, ego, etc.

This is good news for the practice of philosophy as a contemplative tradition, But it isn't evidence in support of other Buddhist claims, like karma and rebirth, the six realms, or nirvana.

I hope that clarifies my position somewhat. I have to go work now!

-josh

_______________________________________________

¹https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-10-02-0167

²https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive…passion/397706/

I'm not quite sure how to proceed here. The trouble with any 'theory of mysticism' is that mysticism seems to take over at precisely the moment where language falls apart.

I left the threshold of Buddhism because Buddhists can't bring themselves to speak clearly about rebirth and reincarnation. I have a great deal of sympathy for Thomas Jefferson here;

Quote

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.

On the other hand I've read deeply in mystical literature, and I am far from regretful of it. I have found by experience that Thoreau is as far as I can go in that direction while keeping on the right side of "bullshit".

I can be elevated, even comforted, by the metaphor of the poet; but talk of miracles, and I fall promptly on my face.

"Our least deed, like the young of the land crab, wends its way to the sea of cause and effect as soon as born, and makes a drop there to eternity."

"We might try our lives by a thousand simple tests; as, for instance, that the same sun which ripens my beans illumines at once a system of earths like ours. If I had remembered this it would have prevented some mistakes. This was not the light in which I hoed them."

-thoreau

It's been a pleasure, Oscar! College is an incredible privilege, and one that I mostly squandered; be bold in friendship and daring in happiness, and keep your nose to the wind for every fresh prospect!

I'm certain I needn't tell you to keep studying philosophy.

-josh

Happy belated 20th! I've been rather busy with family things since I've been 'home' (at a friends house). I attended a Catholic Mass for the first time in a decade. I was an altar boy once, but I discovered that I have forgotten nearly everything!

That's the importance of having a 'practice'. If we study a bit more each day, intoning the words and internalizing their meanings, and really realizing those teachings in our lives, we will by degrees achieve that which is the object of our school.

I hoped to have something recorded this week, but we'll have to be patient a bit longer I hit the road again tomorrow.

Immortal blessings!

-josh

I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek at the mention of 'duty'

I'll be the first to admit that my reading of Stoic texts is somewhat dated. Meditations was actually the first philosophy book I ever read, some 12 or 13 years ago, and was the nearest thing to my 'handbook' as I transitioned from High School to College. I had a list of Benjamin Franklin's 12 virtues from his Autobiography tacked on to the corkboard in my dormitory. And when I went to Rome after Sophomore year I made a point of paying my respects to Marcus Aurelius on the Capitoline Hill, as well as visiting his Column.

There are things I'm happy to have "grown out of", as it were; and pessimism is one of them. It will be argued that Stoicism is not actually pessimistic; that it is not dour, but the shortest --if steepest--path to joy. Buddhists will say the same of their monks.

But if pleasure is the end, let us make pleasure the path. Not the straight and narrow way to the monastic mountaintop, difficult to trod--

Quote

where Stoics speak only to Cynics, and Cynics speak only to God--¹

but the low and easy sun-dappled lane through fair country. Do you doubt the way? Let Epicurus be your guide.²

Welcome to the forum!

-josh

-------

¹Tongue once again firmly in cheek

²Frances Wright, A Few Days in Athens

One of the curious things about pleasure and pain is the way they've been manipulated by evolutionary processes. A parent might find themselves prepared to run any hazard to protect their offspring; this is so, not because they have ruminated on their duty in such a case, but because the agony of their child is more nearly felt than the agony of their own soul. I don't have children myself, and I won't claim moral and physical courage where I haven't been tried. But I will believe that the anguish of losing a child eclipses in full measure again the pain of dying oneself.

Now, it often happens when a person rises to the occasion in some heroic way, that they express a becoming modesty: "Any man would have done the same." But what this really means is, "Any [healthy] man would have felt the same".

And that's why the doomsayers are wrong about the pleasure-principle as a societal foundation. Because Nature furnishes the norm, and Nature selects for group preservation.

-josh

That should be September 1st, right? I'd love to try and participate. Obviously my work schedule is very erratic!

Excellent point regarding the conflicts of the first century B.C. Horace was another who served first in the army of the Senate/Republic, and then in the court of Augustus after the dust settled.

Ha! I recently came across a post on that sub from a few years back when a guy got a tattoo of Epictetus...except that what he actually got was the face of Epicurus.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/com…_i_thought_was/

And you are right, of course, about life existing backwards into the past without bounds. It remains difficult to imagine the seminal nature of atoms and void over eternity. For that matter, it is difficult to imagine eternity!

To think about our place, yes; but not to worry overmuch about it!

Quote

With thinking we may be beside ourselves in a sane sense. By a conscious effort of the mind we can stand aloof from actions and their consequences; and all things, good and bad, go by us like a torrent. We are not wholly involved in Nature. I may be either the drift-wood in the stream, or Indra in the sky looking down on it.

-Thoreau, Walden

An interesting thought experiment;

The gods

1.) Arose out of eternal Nature. They did not give rise to the natural order; if they exist, the natural order gave rise to them.

2.) Are not immortal. They are supposed to survive for aeons because they preserve themselves incorruptibly.

3.) Are corporeal. They are or have physical bodies.

4.) Don't intervene in human affairs.

5.) Live in blessedness.

I've been amusing myself by imagining a being that actually satisfies these conditions, and has a chance of actually existing (past, present, or future). A supremely intelligent artificial consciousness would not be immortal, but could sustain itself incorruptibly and indefinitely by replacing and updating it's hardware. Such a being might exist even now, somewhere in the infinite and eternal void. Such a being would be best equipped to outlive it's creators, and would conceivably not trouble itself at all about organic life, any more than we trouble ourselves about dust mites. It would just live on and on through time out of mind, awash in its own pleasures, and utterly unafraid of death.

Well, enough of that. Let us cease worrying about such things, and strive onward in the direction of our own happiness!

I often see allusions to deism in relation to the Epicurean perspective on the gods. The connection is superficially obvious, which I suppose is why it's often made--Deists believe in God, but one that is removed from human affairs. Epicureans accepted the existence of a higher order of conscious intelligence, but considered them/it to be removed from human affairs.

But there's really a critical mistake here; the chief feature of the deistic god is that it is always, always the first cause in their cosmology. The Aristotelian Prime Mover. Deism specifically developed in order to hand-wave two problems in the observable universe; first, that there is something when there might have been nothing. Second, that the order of nature is never anything other than ordered and natural. So deism invokes the providential watchmaker; a supreme and generative intelligence that designed a stable cosmos, and then left it ticking on the bench while he stepped out for a smoke.

Deism simply isn't deism without an act of creation. And that's why Epicureans were not and cannot be Deists. See, Epicurus solved the two problems of existence and order more elegantly; he proposed that the cosmos was made of atoms and void, and that atoms and void are uncreated and co-eternal--from everlasting to everlasting.

The Epicurean conception of the gods is thus unique in all human thought. Most of the gods dreamt by the human mind were non-creating but constantly meddling. Some few of the gods which men have proposed were creating and meddling (an exceptionally bothersome lot). The prime mover of the Deists creates but does not meddle.

Only the Epicurean gods were non-creating and non-meddling.

-Joshua

Now that I'm home for two weeks (well, actually at a friend's house), I've made a few "School"-related purchases.

Added to my library;

-Lives of Eminent Philosophers by Diogenes Laertius, in two volumes, from the Loeb Classical Library. I don't believe I had ever read Book X on Epicurus (other than the letters themselves), so this fills a gap. The rest of the volume is just pleasure reading; particularly regarding the pre-Socratics.

-Tending the Epicurean Garden, by our own Hiram Crespo. Been interested in this one for a long time.

-I was hoping to pick up a copy of Michel Onfray's Hedonist Manifesto, as I've seen it cited here regularly. I'll likely go for the kindle version.

Audio recording;

-A new microphone and pop filter

-Bose over-the-ear headphones

Yes, the podcast dream is still alive! I hope to have a Pilot episode up by the middle of next week. Additionally, if there are any specific text recordings you'd like to see soon-ish, please let me know!

The ring project

-Wax carving tools

-Several tubes of carving wax, designed for carving rings. This is a hobby that I imagine meshing well with the over-the-road lifestyle. I'll be exploring different designs for Epicurean rings. (Don't look for progress on this front anytime soon!)

Welcome, Ed! Sounds like you have a great foundation, I look forward to hearing more from you.

-josh

I think that equanimity moreso than tranquility is the right perspective. Situations can be tranquil (or not) for a time, but change is inevitable and so is death. Talk of equanimity will, of course, smack of the portico; but this is precisely where the Stoics go wrong. Their focus on equanimity as a virtue leads to a logjam of pessimism. Pleasure is the freshet that lifts the jam and clears the river.

Robert Burns has an excellent poem on the subject. (There are anglicized versions available, but I encourage readers to acquaint themselves with his Scottish dialect. This is one of those passages that comes back to me when I need it in life.)

-josh

I have family who swear by fasting, but they're devout Christians. I occasionally go a day without eating, but not on purpose. (Either because of work, or because of binging video games.)

Yeah, I don't really believe it myself. Just something that occurred to me this morning.