Posts by Don

FYI here's my new background on my work computer

Quote from Susan Hill

Quote from Cassius

Any comments on what you found effective in Stoic World?

I’m afraid I’m not much help there, Cassius. The thing that kept me most motivated in Stoicism was its excellent literature: Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, and then some good modern writers. In comparison, Lucretius is a slow slog for me... I’m in a bind with my pleasure being found mainly in the theology side of things. I’ve found some excellent essays, but am running out of reading material, and seem to be the sole would-be “practitioner”. Maybe Brett has some ideas.

Oh, I would include myself in the class of "looking for an Epicurean practice." I find myself reciting the Tetrapharmakos to myself to time hand washing, waiting in an elevator, etc. I also think mindfulness has a place in Epicureanism. What better way to practice paying attention to the present moment. I've been trying to compile an Epicurean Book of Days with 366 (to take into account keep years) sayings or excerpts with commentary. Not there yet... Or even close but a goal. Still working on the Menoikeus letter too!

As for the Stoics: marketing! They beat us to they punch!

I'll admit my understanding of Aristotle is sketchy. One thing that attracts me to him is his penchant for assembling information and research from as many sources as possible. From what I know, he invented entire fields of science, especially biology. That appeals to me: the research-oriented aspect of Aristotle. He based a lot of his "science" work on observation. Later philosophers and theologians would take Aristotle's work as dogma and forget to observe nature themselves.

That being said, I think his idea that eudaimonia is largely dependent on luck and one's station in life is elitist and not much help to society at large. His focus on virtue and fulfilling your telos seems ill-suited to people finding his philosophy useful.

Maybe I'm weighing Epicureanism against a general humanism or secularism, but I feel (there's that word) I need a comprehensive philosophy. Something to study and practice.

What attracted me initially to Epicurus?

His was the only ancient Greek school to admit - even welcome - women. He didn't need any gods. Pleasure as the goal made sense: carpe diem "pluck the day" was attractive. It seemed like a down to earth philosophy but also had depth.

As a librarian, I have to see objective reality (Earth is round) honored, so I struggle with that word feeling. That's why I've been so adamant about translating pathē as reaction. I still think sometimes in absolutes like "human rights" etc. But I'm coming around to the social contract and contextual nature of all "rights." I find George Carlin's quote intriguing:

Quote

Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges.

That seems to be the same thing Epicurus was saying sort of. We need to agree on what justice is then work to uphold that agreement.

Sorry. This went a little afield. I hope in sheds a little light on my current predicament.

This is all very helpful. Your explanation of the "I feel the earth is flat" was helpful in particular. So, we would need to know if it was an opinion or a reaction for them. And even if a pleasurable reaction, what was it about the "earth being flat" that aroused pleasure. Maybe it's not the false "fact" that the "earth is flat" but some other component of thinking about the earth being flat that elicited the reaction of pleasure. The Earth is *not* flat. But if someone "feels" liked it is, they need to look at their other faculties to understand why they feel that way. BUT someone else's "feeling" that the earth is flat shouldn't cause me pain... Unless they try to impel me to embrace their false opinion. Then "si falsum est, accingere contra!"

I do sincerely appreciate your sticking with me on this!!

The quotes have been helpful as well.

I think your distinction between an opinion and a "feeling"/reaction is important. That's the ambiguity of the word "feeling" that I'm struggling with. I cannot endorse "truthiness" or "going with your gut." But from what I'm reading from you and Godfrey is that we use our initial reaction as *one* criteria in concert with others + reason to bring it all together.

Am I getting closer?

Thanks for taking the time to engage me on this.

Quote from Godfrey

Quote

So, Epicurus says it's alright to use reason, right? We shouldn't rely on it to rationalize and come up with "ideal" absolutes, but we can use it to assimilate the information from our canonical senses.

Exactly! Reason is a tool, but it's not reliable without reference to the faculties of the canon.

Light bulb!So, we don't rely on reason alone. We use it but we use it as a tool as an adjunct or complement to the Canonical senses once we've taken in available information or evidence from them.

If someone says "I feel the earth is flat. That feels true to me" that doesn't mean anything. What do your senses tell you? If the concept of a flat earth brings you Pleasure, what do your senses tell you including what scientific senses tell us through telescopes and discs travel. What do our mental senses tell us? What does our understanding of the universe tell us?

How does that sound?

I think this is helping. Cassius , your pointing out about the faculties complementing each other is helpful. Godfrey , bringing up the bent oar in this context. That helps too!

So, Epicurus says it's alright to use reason, right? We shouldn't rely on it to rationalize and come up with "ideal" absolutes, but we can use it to assimilate the information from our canonical senses.

Am I getting this right? I may be *slowly* leaving the Aristotelian ledge and coming in through the Epicurean window.

Any additional insights are welcomed!!

I've seen this quote online, and it summarizes my unease with the use of the word "feelings" in the Canon. I know I've brought this up ad nauseum but it's one aspect of Epicureanism that keep rearing its head at me and insists on being addressed before I can swim completely pleasurably in Epicurean waters. I'll be frank. This is the aspect that makes me still eye Aristotle as an alternative. I don't like that, and I still find aspects of Aristotle troubling.

That thread quote is exactly my issue. Saying "feelings" makes me think we're "going with our gut" which I believe leads us down the road to "I feel it's true so it's true." I can't abide by that.

Please talk me off the Aristotelian ledge! Epicurus wasn't saying our feelings determine facts, right? We still gather objective facts about reality through our senses and mental capacity and judge our reaction to it by pleasure and pain. Is that it? Because if it's "going with your gut" and "truthiness", Aristotle is winking at me over here.

Okay, now it's a challenge

Letter to Menoikeus, DL, X: 127: Remember that what will be is not completely within our control nor completely outside our control, so that we will not completely expect it to happen nor be completely disappointed if it does not happen.

This could be evidence of Cassius 's conviction that Epicureans weren't wallflowers and that some took part civic and political life.

Well, that's interesting! I want to look at that article but here's one from the Center for Hellenic Studies https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/di…-matthias-haake The word Epicurean comes up many times.

It does look like the priests were more government functionary than spiritual mentors. I see mention of the imperial cult.

Thanks for the info!!

That's howi read it. If you look at the last lines of "verse" 76, Epicurus is talking about the μετεώροις (meteōrois) "astronomical phenomena in the heavens above" so stars, planets, etc. No being controls or ordains them because those beings are blessed and incorruptible and that control is counter to those characteristics. And the planets don't take these movements up themselves under their own control. We must believe that their motion is a result of their "agglomeration" of matter during the "birth-process" of the universe: ἐν τῇ τοῦ κόσμου γενέσει (en tē kosmou genesei) literally, "during the genesis of the cosmos". I find some poetry in Epicurus's words there

I'll admit I was being deliberately provocative with "doing it wrong."

So, from what I'm reading there in your post, Cassius (and correct me!):

You're not discounting the idea that humans have experiences for which they feel they can only describe using culturally-derived religious or spiritual language.

These experiences can be personally profound and potentially life-changing.

However...

If the experiences are still tied to or interpreted through "empty opinions" they have the potential to reinforce negative religious activities or perspectives.

These "empty opinions" would include:

- an eternal soul existing independently of the body

- an eternal soul susceptible to eternal reward or punishment

- a creator god outside of the cosmos

- the ability to propitiate the gods by prayer or sacrifice

My question would be then: Can Epicurus's teachings provide an alternate framework within which to interpret these real experiences without denigrating or belittling the person who experiences them? These experiences seem to me to be part of the way humans would come into contact with the meaning of the quote of Epicurus: "θεοὶ μὲν γάρ εἰσιν." Literally, "On the one hand, gods exist (or there are gods)" [but not as the hoi polloi believe]

Quote from Cassius

So to repeat the main point of this post, I find the term "spiritual experiences" without further definition to be an obstacle to further clarity here

I think I see your point. To muddy the water even more , i would say that (1) these are real experiences felt by persons and that (2) the experiences themselves are typically described using religious language. The only vocabulary available to people for much of history to describe these overwhelming and transformative experiences was language of a religious nature. The experiences were sometimes brought on by or the result of religious practice: intense prayer, deep meditation, etc. Although they could also be brought on spontaneously (e.g., Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus). Human nature has the natural capacity to experience these kinds of experiences. These are experienced as unusual, extraordinary, or significant. As such, humans try to incorporate them into an existing paradigm to make sense of them. The very significance of them calls for a significant explication. The only vocabulary that rises to the level of the overwhelming power of these experiences to the individual in most cultures is religious or spiritual vocabulary. The religious practitioner can replicate the experience with regular practice. I'm thinking specifically of the Tibetan monks or the Sufi dervishes. They believe and sense that they are communing with the divine. This brings them pleasure. I personally don't believe they are communing with a divine *presence* but they*are* experiencing a genuine sensation of bliss. Isn't bliss (μακάριον blissfulness, blessedness) a defining characteristic of the Epicurean gods? Is this the same bliss experienced by dervishes and monks? If the religious practitioner is experiencing pleasure and bliss, do we tell them "No, you're not actually experiencing pleasure and bliss. You're doing it wrong!" If they don't have fear of their God, are they doing it wrong? I don't know, but that's my food for thought off the top of my head for now.

Here are some thoughts:

I have no doubt that there is something people experience that can be called a "religious" or "spiritual experience."

I have no doubt that this can be felt to be profound and life-changing.

I have no doubt that one can feel overwhelming senses of awe and something that can be termed reverence in certain circumstances. I've felt it myself.

There is ample evidence that expressing "spiritual" feelings in a community setting or through individual practices can be fulfilling. This seems to be at the root of some "Religion for Atheists" movements or secular spiritual communities or even some Unitarian Universalist congregations.

However, I don't think that interpreting a religious experience as evidence of a connection with a divine entity or consciousness is the only interpretation that places value on the experience. I think specifically of research done with highly skilled meditators:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1697747/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140813103138.htm

https://www.livescience.com/buddhist-monk-…tion-brain.html

While medicine and science may have things to say about these studies, the monks involved in them see their meditation as a spiritual practice, a way to connect to their own Buddhamind. It is an expression of their religion, and furthermore this practice, it appears, brings them pleasure and well-being (daresay I mention eudaimonia).

I think you're absolutely right, @Susan Hill , that denigrating or dismissing the experience as a delusion or "merely" a "brain event" is not useful. But the event did happen in the brain as evidenced by those studies I referenced.

You mentioned:

Quote

Throughout history, people have had euphoric spiritual experiences that are often considered among the most significant and meaningful in their lives. Those experiences demand to be integrated into some sort of explanation that does not dismiss their reality or validity, or else those powerful feelings become deeply disturbing.

I have no problem saying that those experiences are real and valid as experiences. But what would make them disturbing? Just to be clear: Are you saying that dismissing them or denigrating them or calling them "merely a brain event" is what leads to the person experiencing them to be disturbed? Is the person coming at this experience from a context of fear of God? If so, that's a problem that Epicurus addresses. This is the problem with near death experiences of hell. These can also be spiritual/religious experiences with negative effects:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173534/

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the…rent-seeing-it/

Additionally, I'm finding it difficult to reconcile the Epicurean definition of a god with the idea that a person could have "communication" with them unless I'm misconstruing where we're going. By definition, the gods in Epicureanism are not concerned with us, aren't motivated by gratitude or anger, and what benefit we receive "from" them is due to our own reverence and emulation of their bliss. It's not a reciprocal relationship.

Susan, you also said:

Quote

People long for some way of connecting with the divine. If there are practices that offer this type of pleasure without harm, like some mild forms of meditation, or spiritual reading, or singing songs, or celebrating holy-days, why look down our noses at that? Perhaps it involves a little bit of the “idealism” approach, using a “mind-hack” to gain pleasure, but there is nothing inherently dangerous about that.

Now, this I have no problem getting behind. I'm just not sure I am fully behind the wording of "connecting with the divine." I'm working through that, and it depends on how we define that phrase. But practices like say mindfulness meditation, I have no problem seeing that integrated into an Epicurean practice. I'm still reading through Sedley's translation and commentary on Epicurus's On Nature, Book 28, but at the end he writes:

Quote

"try ten thousand times Over to commit to memory what I and Metrodorus here have just said."

Epicurus stressed the need to memorize his works, to have them ready at hand (well, mind). That's a form of meditation - deep study, repetition, etc. I wouldn't even popularize it by saying "mind-hack." I do think most humans have a need to connect to something "bigger than themselves" but that doesn't need to be the divine in the sense of an outside entity or consciousness. Epicurus - and also Lucretius - showed a way to see the evanescence of life itself, in the play of atoms in the void, as something to be in awe of. To take pleasure in our very existence. To see the gods - whether "real" or "idealized" - as worthy of emulation and as being able to have a life as "worthy of the gods."

I apologize if I've misunderstood or misconstrued any of your points. I do sincerely see this as a very important topic to discuss.

FYI I admit I haven't read the whole article here, but here's the Wikipedia article on Scientism with 65 references and several external links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism?wprov=sfla1

I've liked your post and think you've argued your case strongly. I also always appreciate references, as Cassius is aware. I do have some thoughts on your points, both pro and not so pro, and I'll try to share those asap.

Have you seen Sedley's paper on Epicurus's On Nature, Book 28? it includes commentary and translation from the Herculaneum scroll. I downloaded it from Academia. Not finished reading yet, but it has some very interesting parts about prolepses, epibolē, eidola (images), memory, and more. Directly relevant to the current conversation!

Quote from Elayne

There was _not_ evidence regarding what the smallest particles looked like, at least not that I've seen so far. That's why both Martin and I said whoa, just a minute, in those sections.

I had the exact opposite reaction to those sections. I admit there aren't hooked atoms and smooth atoms as far as shape, but it seems to me that Epicurus and Lucretius got the actions of the atoms/seeds/particles right. They didn't have any other way of describing it so they went with shape. But the carbon of diamond is held in a rigid crystalline structure, difficult to disentangle: like fish hooks tangled in a box. Atoms in water are moving around randomly, sliding around against each other smoothly.

It doesn't matter to me if they got the shape wrong, but the analogy to how particles move - we might have to look at our level of molecules or atoms, not quarks or strings - seems remarkably close to our understanding at the level of atoms coming together to form compounds.

I was going to bring up the problem of eyewitness testimony, Cassius . You beat me to it.