Posts by Mike Anyayahan

Quote from Cassius

such a being is of no threat to us, and to serve as a sort of example of what we ourselves should strive for to the extent of our ability. I think it's a reasonable analogy to suggest that lots of young people improved their basketball skills by comparing themselves in their minds to Michael Jordan

Cassius This is highly probable since the god here is at a complete state of happiness, a reasonable model for Epicureans to live as invisibly as possible the way the God lives invisibly.

Quote from Cassius

I get the impression that 98% of the issue is that people today insist that there can be only one definition of "god." They absolutely refuse to consider a "god" to be anything less than omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent, and all those "magical" qualities that the eastern religions specialize in. It's amazing -- they can read the Epicurean material about a god being natural and not omnipotent,

This is the reason why I am curious what kind of god Epicurus is trying to tell us if such god is not super human or super natural as what the conventional meaning offers us. So far, Elayne 's reply makes more sense to me.

Quote from Elayne

Cassius, I believe I've used the term ET/extraterrestrial, but I meant it in s neutral way-- just as beings not on earth but on another planet.

I think it's quite possible some beings like that are out there.

Elayne This is also my assumption. It is much closer to what I understand Epicurus is portraying such god, a remote and disconnected god. This, so far, makes sense to me since the theory of Annunaki as the gods of the so-called "Garden of Eden"is somehow gaining attention from the mainstream Archaeology.

Quote from Cassius

Exactly Elli, it appears to me that they considered "nothing comes from nothing and nothings goes to nothing" to be the rock on which everything else was based, and in fact at the end of book 1 they say that what is contained there in the atomic discussion is all you need to know to figure all the rest out for yourself -- like a hunting dog!

That "nothing comes from nothing" is a powerful statement. It is coherent. It only tells us that anything that exists must not exist out of nothing. This is also consistent with the idea that atoms and void are infinite. If Epicurus really believes that God exists, this God must not exist out of nothing. Therefore, this God must have been a mortal god. And if he is a mortal god, he must have been at least a super human, but I don't know whether or not Epicurus mentioned about such super human character of the god. In fact, I also don't know whether to use the uppercase "G" or not. And if he isn't super human, why did Epicurus call him God? Is it a form of sarcasm?

I'm just curious because it is no secret to us all what happened to Socrates. In his Apology, we can feel how fatal it was to not believe in the existence of God that some, if not many, philosophers would probably comply with the demand not to eradicate the existence of God in their teachings. I find it odd that Epicurus tells us not to harm others (so that they won't harm us, too, and inflict pain on us) while telling us not to fear the God (because he is harmless). It seems to me that this god is so useless he is close to non-existing entity.

Can any one here enlighten me on this? Don't get me wrong. This is not a Socratic questioning. I am really curious about the matters I have just raised.

Still, as far as I can try to imagine, there is only either pain or pleasure. Bodily pain and mental pleasures may take place at the same time, but again, they are at different areas or state which can happen at one moment so it is easy to believe they happen at the same time. It's like saying my wife is in pain while I am at a pleasant state while we are hugging. I would probably be more convinced if were to experience a "painful painlessness" or a "painless pain." That would sound more Platonic in the sense that it is only present in the imagination and not in my body. I still can't imagine my stomach pain to be painless at the same time.

When two people are dictating to us two different stories at the same time, there is no way we can memorize all that has been said and have two sets of judgment right away at the same as well.

Cassius "Judging between right and wrong" is a clear indication of a single-threaded consciousness unlike computer algorithms which can make a million bits of judgment at the same time without singling out one problem at a time.

Cassius Our sensation such as our eyes must not be discriminated from our consciousness. Here is the evidence I can use so far based on number 24 of the Principal Doctrines: "If you reject absolutely any single sensation without stopping to discriminate with respect to that which awaits confirmation between matter of opinion and that which is already present, whether in sensation or in feelings or in any immediate perception of the mind, you will throw into confusion even the rest of your sensations by your groundless belief and so you will be rejecting the standard of truth altogether. If in your ideas based upon opinion you hastily affirm as true all that awaits confirmation as well as that which does not, you will not escape error, as you will be maintaining complete ambiguity whenever it is a case of judging between right and wrong opinion."

Quote from Cassius

Maybe the issue is whether for purposes of discussing pain and pleasure (applying computer analogies) human consciousness is single-threaded or multi-threaded (?)

Computer algorithms are without a question multi-threaded. Human consciousness on the other hand is single-threaded. It is like our eyes which can only see whatever is before them. I guess there is a much more compelling thread to discuss, and that is the difference between pleasure and happiness. I guess they are two different things others think of Epicureans to speak of alternately. We can ask "Why should we pursue happiness?", but Torquatus expressed that there is no any other reason to ask why we should pursue pleasure because it is what nature simply necessitates.

My point is I can have pleasure while eating and at the same time experiencing a crumbling stomach due to the fact that I am eating something delicious but harmful to my, let's say, stomach ulcer. However, it seems impossible that my stomach pain can become painless at the same time. Otherwise, it is no pain at all.

We can also say that the pleasure in the eyes while pain on the toe are happening at the same time, but the pleasure in the eyes can't be pain at the same time. My pleasure in my mouth can be pain in my stomach, but the pain in my stomach can't have any pleasure at the same time.

Cassius Thanks for taking time to dig deeply on my post. Here is my response to your concerns:

“Mental pleasure exists only when you have peace of mind.”

Your question in mind is the “only” part of my statement. More or less, you have already answered it by saying “I think it is correct Epicurean thought to point out that pleasure and pain are separate feelings and do not blend together.”

To provide you with the basis of my statement, here is a portion of what Torquatus presented in the Book 1 part 11 paragraph 38 of Cicero’s On Ends: “Epicurus consequently maintained that there is no such thing as a neutral state of feeling intermediate between pleasure and pain; for the state supposed by some thinkers to be neutral, being characterized as it is by entire absence of pain, is itself, he held, a pleasure, and, what is more, a pleasure of the highest order.”

So there is only pleasure when there is no pain. Although I know it is also true when you said “I would think it is possible to experience some feelings of mental pleasure while also having a concern that there are worries that need to be addressed,” this could happen alternatively at a time.

However, I still can’t imagine if it happens at the same time because as far as I know pleasure is a product or result of the removal of pain and not two entities that can take place at one particular moment or state. Here is my basis where I also got from the same book in the paragraph 37: “...the complete removal of pain has correctly been termed a pleasure. For example, when hunger and thirst are banished by food and drink, the mere fact of getting rid of uneasiness brings a resultant pleasure in its train. So generally, the removal of pain causes pleasure to take its place.”

With regard to peace of mind, I understand it to be the absence of disturbance. Here I quote from number 79 of the Vatican Sayings: “He who has peace of mind disturbs neither himself nor another.”

And as far as I know, disturbance, annoyance, and uneasiness are not different from one another. The removal of any of them will result in peace of mind, hence pleasure (Of course it is mental pleasure since peace of mind is a mental state). Still in paragraph 37 of Cicero's On Ends, Torquatus said “When we are released from pain, the mere sensation of complete emancipation and relief from uneasiness is in itself a source of gratification. But everything that causes gratification is a pleasure (just as everything that causes annoyance is a pain).

About my statement “...you are still wanting only when you have no limit to what you want.”

What I am talking about here is that unlimited desire will not satisfy us. I based such statement from number 81 of the Vatican Sayings: “The soul neither rids itself of confusion nor gains a joy worthy of the name through the possession of supreme wealth, nor by the honor and admiration bestowed by crowds, nor through any of the other things sought by unlimited desire.”

I have just mentioned that unlimited desire will not satisfy us because this is what I understand from number 68 of the Vatican Sayings: “Nothing is ever enough for someone who regards enough as insufficient.”

About the limiting part, I am referring to the elimination of false idea of endless satisfaction through endless desire and wants. I understand it to be correct based on number 59 of the Vatican Sayings: “What cannot be satisfied is not a man’s belly, as men think, but rather his false idea about the unending filling of his belly.”

Nevertheless, I do not claim to be absolutely correct or accurate. I just rely so far on some pieces of the original works of Epicurus. You recommended that I read Norman DeWitts’ book which you are probably using as an appropriate gauge to measure whether or not a particular comment on Epicurus is correct. This will make me further understand your observation and comments. But so far, this is what I understand based on the original works. I am starting to read DeWitt though.

Lastly, you mentioned “So I am thinking that some of the points could probably be tightened up to be more accurate to the Epicurean viewpoint (which I am presuming is your goal there).”

Yes. That is my goal. That is the reason why I strive to be as close as possible to what has been originally said by Epicurus himself. The problem is…it is also my goal to bring Epicurean philosophy to lay audience, and this effort will probably dilute the exactness of Epicurus’ thought into ordinary words which may become quite general, vague, and shallow. It is a dilemma that I have to face at the expense of accuracy.

Again, this is another example of a modern philosophy that is sitting on the shoulder of a giant most notable of which is the concept of social contract which many people believe to be the product of the Enlightenment where in fact it was Epicurus who first introduced it which is evident in the PD "33. Justice does not exist in itself; instead, it is always a compact to not harm one another or be harmed, which is agreed upon by those who gather together at some time and place."

Therefore, it is not Rousseau nor Hobbes who invented it. The problem with this version of social contract is that it stood on the ground of absolute universal laws while that of Epicurus is more relative and practical.

Quote from Hiram

I don't think essence here is Platonic. It's CREATIVE. In other words, what's being said here is that first we have our material / social conditions (existence), and then we develop our characters and choices over those conditions as we gain responsibility for creating ourselves and our lives (essence, which is our creation to a great extent).

Hiram Yes. Essence here in the core statement (Existence precedes essence) is not Platonic since the word has already been demoted from being the subject to becoming the object in the sentence. It is superfluous to bother ourselves extracting the metaphysical essence of "essence." The statement only asserts the primacy of existence over essence. Therefore, the Platonic concept of essence has been broken here.

Cassius I still can't comment on Norman DeWitt because I have not yet read his book. I'll read it one of these days. So far, I still depend on the original works, and I acknowledge that secondary literature will further help me. I'm curious about his book though.

Quote from Cassius

Although "illusion" probably works, would it be also proper to say that "essence" is simply a construct of the human mind, and has no independent existence apart from being a human construction?

Cassius That's exactly how existentialists understand it since "essence" has already been demoted in the core statement. And this is also the reason why I mentioned that existentialism is sitting on the shoulder of a giant. That giant is none other than Epicurus who had already taught such idea long long long before existentialism (as we now know it) ever existed.

Quote from Martin

Welcome here, too, Mike!

Martin Thanks a lot my friend. I'm looking forward to some more pleasant chats with you guys.

Cassius The definition makes sense. The main idea that describes "essence" is that it is prior to existence. Perhaps, the only way for existentialists to reject it is to say that "essence" is posterior, and "existence" prior. It is because redefining it would only mean the posterior is a different concept, not the one they are rejecting and putting behind.

You're right in your observation that Aristotle merely transferred the location. For Plato, there is essence of something before it exists. For Aristotle, you will know that essence when you sense two or more of such things. Voila! It's the same essence. For Plato, it is abstract. For Aristotle, it is objectified.

However, existentialists reject abstraction and objectification. They are highly relativist and subjectivist. Therefore, essence in existentialism is nothing but a metaphorical representation of such rejection.

The statement that "existence precedes essence" was coined by Jean Paul Sartre. If you get used to his style of writing, you will notice he loves turning statement upside down like "I am what I am not," "I am not what I am."

By rejecting the essentialist position that "essence precedes existence," it's no surprise that Sartre's response is to turn the statement upside down, thus he says "existence precedes essence."

He is not like the conventional philosophers who are taking time abstracting and objectifying the meaning of every word since he doesn't believe in abstraction and objectification.

I think it's enough to say that existence precedes essence to reject the primacy of essence. As I understood it, the primacy of existence only means that every essence is just an illusion.

Cassius Knowing how existentialism condemns abstraction and objectification, I am pretty sure it doesn't have any Aristotelian nor Platonic value. It simply means knowledge or idea. The point is that there is no absolute and abstract knowledge before and after we exist.

Cassius Yes. That makes me more curious about the book.

I guess there are some considerations we should take when comparing Epicureanism and existentialism in order to avoid confusion as existentialism is not a philosophical system but a movement - movement not in the "organizational sense" but "in the sense that there is a revolution of thought against something". The latter is what I refer to being in comparison with Epicureanism.

Existentialism does not necessarily mean nihilism. However, there are nihilists that are existentialists. There are also nihilists that are not existentialists.. Example of them is Michel Focault. He is not an existentialist as he doesn't believe that we have a freedom of choice. However, he is a nihilist as he rejects not only the value of history but also the role of science along with morality and knowledge. The known existentialist-nihilist is Albert Camus whose presentation of the Myth of Sisyphus tells us that everything is nothing and we can't do anything about it.

Contrary to what many believe, Nietzsche is not a nihilist. He only rejects slave morality and the superstition of Christianity, yet he clearly expresses the importance of will.

Nihilism is the rejection of will. Existentialism emphasizes it.

Among the existentialists, Nietzsche, Sartre, Simone De Beauvoir are the ones that give emphasis on free will. De Beauvoir said that we are condemned to make choices.

In the case of Epicureanism, free will is expressed in the theory of the Swerve and in the rejection of the fear of God and worries about death. Hadn't Epicurus believed in free will, he wouldn't have probably introduced the importance of prudence.

The core philosophy of existentialism is that "existence precedes essence". I don't think Epicurus would reject such statement. In fact (whether we like it or not) Epicurus was the first to have told the world about that idea.