Posts by Don

Ah, toddlers! I fondly remember nighttime going to bed "rituals". One of ours was reading short books, mostly by Sandra Boynton, especially the Going To Bed Book. I can still repeat it after oh my... Well over a decade now! Time flies! Enjoy your child every step of the way!

It might be helpful to know the specific prayer your toddler enjoys saying. I know the one I would say when I was very young was traumatizing to think of now, including ..."if I die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to keep."

I think a toddler is too young for the Tetrapharmakos. And besides it also introduces death, do I'd steer away from that for now.

I don't have any specific saying of Epicurus or Lucretius right now, but one option might be focusing on gratitude. What are you most thankful for today? Or come up with a rote litany like a prayer: I'm thankful for ... And... And...

Or pleasure. What made you the happiest today? Let your toddler reflect on what makes them happy throughout that day. Or again let them come up with a rote list and make that into a "prayer."

There might also be something about Nature you could use.

This is an intriguing question you pose. I'll continue to give it thought and share anything I can come up with. I think you also open up a new area in the idea of how to introduce Epicureanism to children.

An even more striking line from Cicero's Epicurean is:

Quote

I am not going to expound to you doctrines that are mere baseless figments of the imagination,

He's going to use observation and evidence to the best of his ability.

But...

Do we hold the ancients' reasoning from their evidence to our standard of knowledge? Or do we approach them on their terms and limits?

We know there are not "hooked atoms" and "smooth atoms" but do we applaud them for using their available observations (e.g., fishhooks in a box) and extrapolating a natural explanation of nature, free of supernatural and divine intervention?

I'll admit I was out of my depth on Godfrey 's post on necessary and sufficient. This site helped explain it for me, especially the examples.

Looking forward to 33.

From what I can read from those categories, the ancient Epicureans would have had a lot of phenomena stuck at 2b whereas modern science, with its extension of the senses (e.g., microscopes, telescopes, etc), is able to have many more move into 2c. Major 2b ones that we still wrestle with are the deep structure and origin of the universe, the origin of life, etc. BUT we can literally see into deep space and "see" deep into matter at the interactions of atoms and molecules with experimentation and even deeper to understand sub-atomic particles via instruments like the Large Hadron Collider.

I also think when Epicurus and Lucretius talk about things like hooked "atoms" (*their* atoms, not our atoms) in, for example, diamond, they were intuiting the rigid crystalline atomic structure of this substances without realizing what we know today. In their experience, something with hooks could become entangled (a box of fishhooks, let's say). Likewise, "atoms" with hooks would result in a material difficult to disentangle. Same way with the smooth "atoms" in liquids. In their experience, smooth grains of sand slide past each other. At the "atomic" level, smooth "atoms" would allow a substance to flow.

Now, in modern times, we know these properties have to do with atomic and crystalline structures and the properties of molecules, etc. We don't see atoms (our atoms, not Epicurean atoms) as un-cuttables or fundamental particles but through the ancients' observations, they reasoned that if things like hooks and sand behaved one way, that if similar structures were analogous at their "atomic" level, that's how things too small to see could account for the things we see. You can go down to that unseeable world and still have unchanging particles that could give rise to things we can see. The "smooth atoms" and "hook atoms" don't change, merely their arrangements. But if you insisted on dividing below the level of the atoms** infinitely, there's nothing that could hold together to form matter and you'd end up with nothing being able to be formed. Essentially, there'd be nothing for the universe to be made of. Stopping at the "atoms" provides the universe's building blocks.

**NOTE: To be clear, I'm talking here about the Epicurean atoms/seeds. I have no problem at all "dividing below the level of the [modern] atoms" to discover quarks, mesons, quantum fields, etc.

I always forget these episodes are at least a week old for you as opposed to those of us just listening to them

Quote

Don as I recall from the episode there was discussion to the effect that "indivisible" ultimate particles might be sustainable by modern science and something that we can or should still maintain to be true, but not "immutable."

I think that's probably the issue you're addressing but I am not quite sure from what you wrote where you would come down on that.

Could you clarify what you're saying as it applies to that issue?

I'm responding to the extended discussion starting at when you quoted DRN at 14:23 and then you ( Cassius ) said Lucretius is talking about an "ultimate particle of some kind that has unchanging characteristics" and Elayne says "there's no such thing as that."

My contention is that Lucretius was simply talking about the Epicurean "un-cuttables" or "seeds" as Lucretius sometimes calls them. Here he uses principiis (line 757, Latin) "first-beginnings" as a name for the "atoms" or what is unchanging. Then he goes on to talk about how important it is in how they're held together. That's what gives these "unchanging" things the ability to impart characteristics to the things we see. But, being the basic building blocks of the universe, these seeds/atoms/first-beginnings don't change, just like (at a basic - NOT modern chemistry/physics level) carbon atoms are carbon atoms no matter whether the arrangement is coal or graphite or diamond.

From my perspective, you're reading too much into Lucretius's "there necessarily must be something that remains immutable." I think he's simply talking about the "seeds" or Epicurean "atoms/un-cuttables" of which there are supposed to be types.

For Lucretius, the "immutable" somethings are "seeds" like smooth atoms and hooked atoms. These remain *unchanged* whether the smooth atoms are in water or wine; whether the hooked atoms are in iron or stone. These "seeds" remain unchanged. In a modern sense, a carbon atom is the same whether it is in my body or coal; a hydrogen atom is the same whether it is in water or in a star. The atom remains unchanged.

For Lucretius and Epicurus, the fundamental "particles" *were* the "un-cuttables" which remain unchanged when combined in different bodies. We can't hold Lucretius and Epicurus to our quantum field theory ideas of what fundamental particles are.

This probably does belong in a different thread.

I can understand Philos Armonikos 's distinction between revision and revival and can see both in our endeavors to bring attention to Epicureanism. I think Cassius is (but correct me if I'm wrong) naming neo-Epicureans as those who focus on one aspect of the philosophy and extrapolate that to the be-all and end-all of the philosophy: the minimalists, the tranquilists, etc. But, let's not kid ourselves, we can never truly be Epicureans in the ancient, classical sense. We are not able to - and cannot - recreate the Garden. Our textual sources are too few, our social structure and culture are too different, our scientific understanding is more complex, and so on. However, what we *can* do is take those sources and revive/revise a Philosophy that is true to the spirit of Epicurus and something we can believe he would recognize and sanction. We can do this "as if Epicurus were watching."

Quote from Cassius

I would say that Epicurean philosophy is ultimately not about any particular and precise physics position (and in that I think we are agreed). The issue is more that Epicurean physics were derived using a particular approach to knowledge (the canonical faculties vs "rationalism") and if we don't learn the details of that method then we'll never understand the appropriate consequences for the ethics.

Agreed. I think this reinforces what I was saying: forest not trees. It's more important to understand *how* and *why* Epicurus arrived at his conclusions than the "scientific" proposals themselves that can be refuted by modern science... with the understanding that modern science hasn't answered all the outstanding questions.

Quote from Cassius

It is very important to observe the resistance that Epicurus displayed toward accepting contentions based on mathematics, geometry, or other aspects of logical modeling. Such conclusions can actually or apparently contradict what we observe through the senses, and that is why we are talking about these issues and need to continue to do so.

That being said, our understanding of mathematics has progressed well beyond what was available to the Ancient Greeks. I'm not sure if the Greeks even accepted the idea of zero (and I'm not trying to be hyperbolic here).

Quote from Cassius

Studying the reasoning behind "the swerve," for example, will always be more useful for understanding Epicurus' thought process than it will ever be for explaining the movement of atoms.

Yes, agreed, and ultimately more satisfying. This process is less shoe-horning Epicurus's ideas into an anachronistic, modern context (and vice versa) and more understanding Epicurus's thought process so we can apply *that* to our modern lives.

Thanks and agreed.

Just as we shouldn't hold Epicurus to our modern understanding, we shouldn't hold ourselves to maintaining ancient ideas that have been better explained by modern science. If we don't, we fall into the trap of textual fundamentalism and requiring *belief* in things like the idea that the universe is 6,000 years old like some *other* fundamentalists believe. Again, forest not trees.

From my perspective, those three that you mention (infinite universe, the swerve, immutability and indestructibility of atoms, etc.) should not be impediments to acceptance of Epicurean philosophy. We had a thread elsewhere on the forum on infinite vs innumerable. Ultimately, it doesn't matter to me whether the universe is infinite *in fact*. From my puny human perspective, it is, for all intents and purposes, infinite. On the swerve, there is minimal surviving textual evidence or information on this topic from Epicurus and the early Epicureans. Personally, I don't think we should get hung up on it. On the "immutability and indestructibility of atoms", whether we *interpret* this to mean the fields of quantum physics or something else, this points to Epicurus's concept that things just don't change willy-nilly. There is *something* "natural" that holds up or undergirds our - and the universe's - physical existence. It does a gross disservice to Epicurus to say, "He said atoms are indestructible. What a dummy! We are so much smarter than him!" We need to ask what was he getting at with *his* interpretation of existence. Why was that *idea* important to him?

If we take that tack, I think we can have an interesting conversation on the similarities between Ancient "Physics" (quotes used deliberately) and modern Physics; but we should neither denigrate the ancients for their understanding nor require ourselves to maintain outdated scientific ideas.

I have found this thread fascinating and greatly appreciate those who have participated. It has been enlightening and intellectually stimulating.

But...

1) Epicurus and the ancient Epicureans cannot be held to a modern standard of scientific accuracy and detail. They had no instruments, no experimentation (other than the most rudimentary processes). They didn't have the benefit of centuries of hypotheses and theories. They had no Newton, Einstein, Hawking, et al. Those scientists stood on the shoulders of the giants before them. The ancient philosophers were basically building the scaffold for the later giants to stand on, then the scaffold got wrecked by Christians and barbarians and had to be repaired before science could even become a thing.

2) The fact that Epicurus and his predecessors used the word ἄτομος atomos "un-cuttable" is, in some ways, unfortunate. The fact that the ancient term was repurposed by John Dalton in 1805 entices us to place all our modern interpretations and discoveries backwards onto the ancient Greeks. "We use the same word, we must mean the same thing." While there are similarities between the modern "atom" and the ancient ἄτομος, they are not the same and we cannot impose a modern interpretation on the ancient term.

The same can be said about φύσις physis and Physics, the modern sense being applied in 1715. Again, the similarities are there but only in the basic outlines. The ancients were attempting to explain "natural things." Modern physics has narrowed its focus and has had access to increasingly more sophisticated processes and equipment.

3) If we want to call ourselves Epicureans, we can't lose the vision of the forest for the trees. My perspective is that we have to focus on Epicurus's intent: The Universe is material. There are no supernatural causes. This, in turn, means there is no existence after death. I fully realize that's overly simplified, but I think we hold Epicurus to an unrealistic standard if we insist on fitting an Epicurean φύσις peg into a quantum physics hole. We can muse over the similarities and be impressed with what Epicurus had glimpses of from his observations and reasonings. But I think we have to, as Illka mentioned above, cut the ancients some slack.

Yes. It's been a little while, but I seem to remember giving it an enthusiastic (albeit depressing) thumbs up. So much lost momentum by losing the classical learning.

As I remember, the book opens with a book burning of Epicurean texts.

Joshua is absolutely right. It was just Jefferson's library that he offered for sale to Congress. Here's an online exhibit about that process from the Library of Congress site.

I also added some edits with more info about his papers and letters in my previous post above.

As a side note: The Library of Congress is one of my favorite places in DC. The history, the architecture, the collections! If you've never been there - and IF we ever get to travel again - you owe it to yourself to visit if you're in DC. And the bar to get a Reader's Card is low, and that gets you into the actual Reading Room and collections.

Okay, this may be significant from Wikipedia:

Quote

The [Papers of Thomas Jefferson] grew out of a plan developed in 1943 by Julian P. Boyd, the chief librarian of Princeton University, a scholar of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, and the historian of the Thomas Jefferson Bicentennial Commission. The Commission tasked Boyd with studying whether or not a comprehensive collection of Jefferson's papers would be feasible. Prior to this less than 20% of Jefferson's papers had been published in any format and what had been published had been highly selective and thinly or poorly annotated.

So that begins to address collections of his papers.

This from Monticello also leads me to believe the private letters written in retirement were not in wide circulation.

Quote

Two-thirds of the documents written by Jefferson are being published for the first time [in 2004], and the figure for letters he received is even higher.

And this additional info from Monticello summarizes the editions of Jefferson's writings back to the early 1800s.

And finally, it looks like the 1819 Epicureanism letter to short was published in 1905:

Text: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (ed. A. A. Lipscome and A. E. Bergh) Volume XV (Washington DC: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association 1905) pp. 219-224. (See footnote here.)

Papers of Thomas Jefferson

Quote

The Papers of Thomas Jefferson is the definitive edition of the papers of the author of the Declaration of Independence, our nation’s third president. Begun in 1943 as the first modern historical documentary edition, the project includes not only the letters Jefferson wrote but also those he received. Julian P. Boyd, librarian, scholar of the Declaration of Independence, and first editor, designed an edition that would provide accurate texts with accompanying historical context. With the publication of the first volume in 1950 and the first volume of the Retirement Series in 2004, these volumes print, summarize, note, or otherwise account for virtually every document Jefferson wrote and received. Today, the project continues publishing at least two volumes a year...

But I realize this doesn't answer our question. The only thing this does is tell us when they seem to have been collected and disseminated in a "modern" context. Still looking...

LOL. I tried to look today briefly at work (It's a reference question, right?) Nothing yet but stay tuned.

If Joshua gets pleasure from the work, that's what's most important!

Cassius , you do raise good points about discovered the how and why different modern (in the widest sense) authors have such divergent views of Epicurus: DeWitt/Jefferson/Wright vs Santayana/Nietzsche/ad nauseum. And there seems to be historical precedent for "setting the record straight" even during Epicurus's lifetime.

I did find that paper I found interesting because it does seem to highlight the need to take pleasure in the arts without analyzing them too much. However, if our enjoyment can be enhanced or enriched by a deeper understanding by someone's labors, I don't see a conflict (at least as I write this )

Glad you found it interesting.

I too had the same reaction to the academic term in the title. I also skipped ahead to the sections on Epicurus

You make very good points, Cassius ! I believe I was a little too cavalier in my assessment.

As to your mention of poetry, I just posted in the "arts" threads a paper I discovered that addresses Epicurus's views on the arts. I think the author makes some strong points.

With the recent postings of music and poetry, I found this article I discovered online interesting: Epicurus and Aesthetic Disinterestedness. I wasn't familiar with the term but I felt the author made some strong points.

I did a word search for "Epicurus" and skimmed those sections. It seems like Santayana just took the worst stereotypes of Epicurus and ran with that. I see a couple of his points that could be refuted by one or two PDs or Vatican Sayings. Just seems like sloppy scholarship.