Posts by Don

Oh, dear. I did say I was going to respond. I'm going back and listening again to make sure I remember correctly. I'm about 1/2 way through again. Here are some initial thoughts:

I think I'm coming around to the idea that investigation... observation, if you will... of phenomena doesn't have to stop if you're Epicurean. I'm still not sure if I'm onboard with Epicurus and the classical Epicureans being advocates of "science" since science as a method or discipline didn't exist yet. I'm uneasy about imposing anachronistic definitions onto ancient terms, texts, and ideas. That said, Epicurus's φυσιολογίας "physiologias" or the study of Nature/what is natural would imply he wanted an accurate or realistic understanding of natural processes and phenomena. My jury is still out on the implications of this.

I do want to address the conversation in the podcast on truth or Truth with a capital T. I have to disagree with Elayne and others that everyone knows what Truth is. In a quotidian sense, people can understand what true vs false is. "2+2=4" is true. I can count things. "The Earth is flat" is not true but some people will assert that it is true. For them, that statement is true and in some ways Truth. Other people "know" God is real and intercedes in their life and that's True. They would say others who don't believe God is Truth are mistaken (at least). All of humanity does not have a prolepsis of Truth. That would make life easier. Maybe in the most rudimentary sense of true vs false, but I don't think that rises to the level of prolepsis. People know what THEY know is Truth but those other people over there don't know Truth. Unless I've misconstrued the conversation, I think the concept of Truth is much more elusive than some on the panel tried to make it out to be.

PS It appeared to me that Truth was being described as more of a Platonic ideal than as an Epicurean prolepsis in the podcast.

Quote from Cassius

Yes, Godfrey I agree. I can understand the technical issues being discussed by those who challenge "free will" - at least I think I can - but I also observe that those who really get into arguing against "free will" seem to have an agenda with implications that go far more deep than just a desire to be technically correct. Some version of "free will" is something that seems to be just as real to us as pleasure and pain, and from a practical point of view that pretty much ends the discussion of whether it is "real" or not.

I agree, Cassius . I can follow their arguments but I find them unpersuasive most of the time. And I agree that, from a practical perspective, free will is "real."

Quote

Godfrey: I recently listened to a podcast with Alan Alda interviewing Brian Greene.

It wasn't the Clear and Vivid episode by any chance, was it? I'm a regular listener of that podcast.

Interesting. It looks like vestigia carries the idea of footprints ("vestigial" marks left over from someone walking):

• vestīgium n (genitive vestīgiī or vestīgī); second declension
• footprint, track
• trace, vestige, mark
• sole of the foot
• horseshoe
• (figuratively, of time) moment, instant

My heavens (pun intended)! This thread has been active since I've been sleeping! Wonderful, thought-provoking comments and clarifications! I'm looking forward to digging in and responding!

One thing that hit me this morning was that I wanted to go back and see what Epicurus actually said when talking about other worlds in the Letter to Herodotus:

Quote

"Moreover, there is an infinite number of worlds [κόσμοι ἄπειροί εἰσιν], some like this world, others unlike it. For the atoms being infinite in number, as has just been proved, are borne ever further in their course. For the atoms out of which a world might arise, or by which a world might be formed, have not all been expended on one world or a finite number of worlds, whether like or unlike this one. Hence there will be nothing to hinder an infinity of worlds [τὴν ἀπειρίαν τῶν κόσμων].

I admit I assumed that he used a word like Earth or something. I was pleasantly surprised and amused that the word he uses throughout is κόσμος kosmos or, if you will, cosmos. So, "there will be nothing to hinder an infinity of worlds" could just as readily be translated as "There is nothing impeding an unlimited number of cosmos." The ambiguity of that word "cosmos" is fun to play with. Don't misunderstand! I'm not saying Epicurus was a proponent of the multiverse interpretation (necessarily) but I don't think he'd rule it out. As I understand, cosmos can refer to a world or a world and its associated system or the universe, the sum total of "order" (cosmos) that arose out of Chaos (and we know Epicurus was unsatisfied by his early teachers' attempts to explain Hesiod's Chaos).

The poetry of a phrase like "an infinity of worlds" has a certain allure and power to my ears. That whole last sentence of that paragraph would make a great Tshirt or bumper sticker

Quote

οὐδὲν τὸ ἐμποδοστατῆσόν ἐστι πρὸς τὴν ἀπειρίαν τῶν κόσμων.

"Ouden to empodostatēson esti pros tēn apeirian tōn kosmōn."

That empodostatēson carries the connotation of feet (..podo...) being put into shackles or fetters. So, there's nothing (ouden) binding the feet of reality for the existence of innumerable (apeirian) cosmos.

Ah! That concept - and the way Epicurus expresses it - just sings for me in the original language!

Good point, Cassius , on the necessity of some scientific literacy for everyone. You seem to also be making an argument for the need for some critical thinking skills which I also agree with wholeheartedly.

One thing that struck me just now (literally, just before I saw your post and replied) was that this feeds back into my earlier query about Epicurean attitudes to multiple explanations. On our current thread's topic here, there are multiple explanations (at least 4) for different multiverse theories. All appear to have parts of real possible approaches for getting at the real nature of reality. But we *can't* know for sure at this point, and that's okay. I can accept a possible multiverse and wait for more evidence of study to hone that idea. Just like the causes of lightning or earthquakes to Epicurus or Lucretius. They *couldn't* know for sure (no instruments, no theory of plate tectonics, etc.), but they thought about it, came up with multiple plausible (to them) fully-natural explanations, and decided to live under those parameters but be open to more study or evidence of it came along.

One of the things that attracted me to Epicureanism is that, from my perspective, it can incorporate an idea like the multiverse or evolution or the possibility of alien life or other science with barely a shrug. "That's very interesting," Epicurus says, and goes on about his writing. I don't think many systems of thought can do that. Concepts like the Atonement (What happens if there's aliens? Can they be saved too?) or evolution can tie Christian theology into knots! Epicureanism can look at those (aliens, evolution, etc.) and go, "Yep. No problem." Even classical Stoics saw the Logos at work in the universe. Epicureans didn't. They saw atoms and void and random movement. The fact that we have seen particles and anti-particles pop into and out of existence through energy changes of the quantum fields in particle accelerators doesn't affect the overall worldview of Epicurus one bit. There are fundamental physical building blocks of the universe. Whether you call them "atoms and void" or something else, the universe is built of matter without divine intervention. And even if "gods" exist, Epicurus demonstrated they have no concern over what we do nor could they have built the universe. That is incompatible with blessedness and happiness.

That's one of my reasons for finding Epicurus's philosophy compelling and worthy of study for myself.

Quote from Godfrey

Hmmm. I've definitely got to read up on the multiverse. I have no idea about spaces between or different sets of laws....

I'm happy to provide some resources:

• "Nothing" - a TV program about "nothing" although the host also refers to it as the void and the vacuum. The void is an active principle out of which the universe arose. The void is not nothing.
• "Is our universe the only universe?" - TEDed presentation by Dr. Brian Greene pulling together string theory, inflationary cosmology, and the multiverse. Greene is an engaging, dynamic speaker. I highly recommend his videos and books.
• "Do we live in a multiverse?" - A good summary from The Economist and a summary of different multiverses
• "How many universes are there?" - PBS SpaceTime. Just when you think you may be wrapping your brain around the theory, watch this one (and others in the PBS SpaceTime series). My brain hurts!

Just the tip of the multiverse. If you're still interested, I recommend Dr. Greene, Dr. Sean Carroll, PBS SpaceTime. Please feel free to let me know if you find these interesting.

Quote from Cassius

Right -- so long as the infinite has no boundary, then there's no "other side" for god to live on, and any gods that do exist must live in our own universe. Good point.

Ah! But don't the Epicurean gods live in the intermundia... And couldn't that be the space between the universes of the multiverse? Just throwing that out there.

Cassius had some comments above that I wanted to comment on, so I'll include them all here. Most are "Amen, ho adelphos mou (my brother)!" and others I wanted to riff on.

Quote from Cassius

My personal take is that Epicurus is stressing the need to think about and get comfortable with the idea that there are certain things that are very difficult to get our minds around. He's saying that instead of defaulting to some mystical attitude that "it must be god/divine/magical," we should come to terms with the limits of our capabilities and get comfortable with making decisions within that scope, with is itself a very desirable thing to be good at.

Fully agree. It's that "limits" concept again that has a stream running through the philosophy. I also think Epicurus stresses again and again the material nature of reality with no need to default to the supernatural or mystical forces. And agreed that getting comfortable within one's limits is a positive thing, recognizing those limits, but also expanding those limits and one's understanding. Epicurus seemed to encourage students to study the doctrines and expand from the summary/epitome phase to the comprehensive view (i.e., the 37 books of On Nature) while never loosing sight of the summary versions and using those to keep your knowledge fresh *and* using that to be able to explain the philosophy succinctly and clearly.

Quote from Cassius

an important distinction between "uncountable because we don't have the time or ability" (the grains of sand on the beach) vs. "uncountable because it in fact has no limit on the number of instances" (the number of stars or planets or whatever in the universe).

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. I would include the grains of sand, the stars in the sky, and the number of molecules in one's body in that first category. I'm not sure I know what you mean by "instances". And, in fact, all those things are "countable" at least "estimate-able" using extensions of our senses and/or extrapolating using mathematics (e.g., a grain of sand is this big...; planets tend to form around this kind of star and there are this many stars...., etc.). My version of unlimited/infinite comes down to the average humans ability to both count and comprehend these enormous numbers. Which goes back to your point, I believe, about context and what audience one is talking to.

Quote from Cassius

That's why personally for me when we discuss (in the podcasts for example) that it doesn't matter whether the heat death of the universe theory is correct or not, because the time span is too great to be of relevance to us, I personally don't find that a satisfactory place to stop. I don't think Epicurus would have accepted (or suggest that we should entertain) any theory as possible which would postulate that anything could go to nothing, or come from nothing, much less the universe as a whole.

That's not exactly my take - i.e., its being relevant to us - on this topic. Let me expand on my thoughts on this one: I don't think it's a place to stop investigating. And details of all the cosmological theories are still to be worked out! And as I mentioned earlier, that "heat death" is only for our own little "pocket universe". The bigger multiverse stays "here" eternal and unchanging to paraphrase Epicurus. My take on the concept's "relevance" to us humans is that the timespans are SO mind-bendingly huge that - for all intents and purposes - the universe *is* "infinite" in relation to us even though its actual lifespan is (most likely) finite. Scientists have "seen" (with extensions of their senses) space expanding and the broad consensus is that it will keep expanding until the last bit of energy is spent. But that is SO far off in the future - relative to us - that even our far-off descendants or the descendants of the sentient squids that come after us will be long gone. BUT that doesn't negate Epicurus's fundamental Canon and material-based, non-supernatural Physics relative to us with respect to our situation in the here and now.

Also, I should say, I don't necessarily buy the idea of parallel universes where there are infinite numbers of "me" all living slightly different or radically different lives (a la Rick and Morty for those familiar with that animated series). I do find the idea of multiple universes existing side by side in the wider multiverse, all with radically different laws of physics or whatnot, intriguing. As long as there aren't multiple me's roaming around, I can *almost* wrap my head around that.

More to follow... Enjoying this thread! (Does it show? )

Quote from Cassius

Yes I agree, but just as we have to remain flexible toward ultimate particles we ha e to be at least as flexible and skeptical, or more so, about any particular theoretical model, especially if it is used to imply or advocate interpretations that would undermine the conclusion that the senses (thecanonical faculties) are what human life is all about.

"They're made up of sub-atomic particles according to the Standard Model"

Oh, agreed!

My understanding is that Epicurus built his Philosophy from the ground up, but what was most important in the end was how we live our lives based on that structure with the firm foundation of Canon and Physics.

We can't be beholden to millennia-old texts and be taken seriously when it comes to scientific assertions (like some people .. cough... Say "The Universe is 6,000 years old" ... cough), but being beholden to the spirit of the assertions should not be a problem.

And I also agree that most people don't need to concern themselves with multiverses, quantum field theory, etc., to live their daily lives. For those of us who enjoy that type of contemplation, it's pleasurable. But just knowing there are physical laws in the universe and we're made up of an infinite number of atoms and molecules and building on that, that can be enough.

I also don't think we should get caught in the trap of Epicurean Fundamentalism in requiring specifically "atoms and void" to exist as Epicurus described then. And we can't hold Epicurus to modern scientific standards of evidence and terminology.

We know modern "atoms" which make up molecules are not "un-cuttable" now. They're made up of sub-atomic particles according to the Standard Model. And those particles in turn may be made up of "strings" or fluctuations in quantum fields or... And so on.

The ultimate importance of Epicurus's "atoms and void" is that there are fundamental physical "somethings" (atoms) and "something" within which those other "somethings" move (void) that make up the universe... That make up everything. There is no Prime Mover, no Demiurge, no Zeus, no Logos, nothing, other than those fundamental particles/laws/fields/? that comprise the universe and, by virtue of that, we can come to understand the universe without resorting to supernatural explanations, luck, or the vicissitudes of Fortune.

Quote from Cassius

Ha, Don and I crossposted and took opposite positions on the heat death issue ...Does "nothing come from nothing or go to nothing" really mean that, or should be be open to exceptions even there?

Well, there's one way to get honest responses from each of us!

I think I should expand my thoughts. I'm still not saying "nothing comes from/goes to nothing." As I understand it, if you take the multiverse or pocket universe theory at its word, there is a superstructure within which each universe "pops" into existence. Our universe would "simply" come into being within that larger structure... Just as we "pop" into existence out of the superstructure of atoms and void that make up our universe. There's reason to believe that that superstructure is infinite and eternal and all the universes come into existence, exist and expand, and eventually fade away due to scientific principles. The universes constituent parts would get Incorporated back into the superstructure of the multiverse, like our atoms go back to the universe to be used again somewhere else.

That all may sound spooky and supernatural, but I don't think it is. The more I contemplated how the universe works, the more that line of thought makes sense... It feels right, if you will.

Oh, I forgot to mention the heat death of the universe! For me, this idea makes sense in that the universe would have the same life as everything else. Before the big bang it did not exist, then it existed, and finally it too will die and exist no more. I realize Epicurus said the universe, the All, το παν, always existed. And that may be true from a multiverse perspective, but also, from the perspective of a human lifespan, our own universe might as well be infinite in expanse and time.

I wanted to go back to the original of Cassius 's underlined quote there:

Quote

μάλιστα δὲ σεαυτὸν ἀπόδος εἰς τὴν τῶν ἀρχῶν καὶ ἀπειρίας καὶ τῶν συγγενῶν τούτοις θεωρίαν

This is interesting because it includes θεωρίαν which means "contemplation, consideration." This is the same word used in the characteristics of the sage that gets translated "take joy in public spectacles" but refers to speculation, etc., in the mental sense in Epicurus. So, Epicurus is encouraging Pythokles to most importantly set out yourself on the contemplation of these things.

The word meaning infinite in this list is ἀπειρίας, literally ἀ "un, not" + πειρίας "bounded, limited". Wikipedia had an infinity article which mentions the Greek attitude to the concept. The LSJ had a definition that includes mention of Aristotle and there Stoics use of this concept, so we always have to keep in mind whether Epicurus was using the term on its own or as a reaction to another school.

My take recently was that something doesn't need to be literally infinite for us humans to consider it so. An example is the task of counting of all the grains of sand on every beach and in every desert on Earth. Sure, that's a finite number but for all intents and purposes it might as well be infinite in relation to a human lifespan.

I think we need to be careful, too, about assigning modern mathematical concepts of infinity to classical Greeks. Our scientific notion may be similar but not identical to theirs.

That picture has an MC Escher vibe to it and also reminds me of the talk of pocket universes. Thanks for starting the thread!

There's a LOT to digest here and I greatly appreciate everyone's thoughts on this topic. I plan to respond in more detail, but I had to say that this line from Elayne 's post made me smile and nod my head in agreement!

Quote from Elayne

I have for years said the atheists should not celebrate a Day of Reason. They should have a Day of Evidence.

Well said!

I agree. If we are to use our emotions or feelings or pathē as criteria for our choices and avoidances, we had better be able to listen to them. From my perspective, Epicurus was telling us to use pleasure and pain as our stop and go signals. You can't just go, go, go. We have both pleasurable and painful emotions. If we're feeling a painful emotion, why? What's the cause? How can we use that to make a choice to avoid that cause? Or are we experiencing that painful emotion in order to achieve pleasure later? Suppressing specific emotions cuts one off from half one's criteria for prudent decisions.

I hope I characterized your thoughts correctly in my contribution here. Good topic!

I'm taking a look at the Yonge translation of the Letter to Herodotus and getting an interesting take on this subject (emphasis added):

Quote

“As to us, we find many explanations of the motions of the sun, of the rising and setting of the stars, of the eclipses and similar phænomena, just as well as of the more particular phænomena. And one must not think that this method of explanation is not sufficient to procure happiness and tranquillity. Let us content ourselves with examining how it is that similar phænomena are brought about under our own eyes, and let us apply these observations to the heavenly objects and to everything which is not known but indirectly.

Let us despise those people who are unable to distinguish facts susceptible of different explanations from others which can only exist and be explained in one single way.

Let us disdain those men who do not know, by means of the different images which result from distance, how to give an account of the different appearances of things; who, in a word, are ignorant what are the objects which can excite any trouble in us.

If, then, we know that such a phænomenon can be brought about in the same manner as another given phænomenon of the same character which does not inspire us with any apprehension; and if, on the other hand, we know that it can take place in many different manners, we shall not be more troubled at the sight of it than if we knew the real cause of it.

“We must also recollect that that which principally contributes to trouble the spirit of men is the persuasion which they cherish that the stars are beings imperishable and perfectly happy, and that then one’s thoughts and actions are in contradiction to the will of these superior beings; they also, being deluded by these fables, apprehend an eternity of evils, they fear the insensibility of death, as that could affect them.

What do I say? It is not even belief, but inconsiderateness and blindness which govern them in every thing, to such a degree that, not calculating these fears, they are just as much troubled as if they had really faith in these vain phantoms.

And the real freedom from this kind of trouble consists in being emancipated from all these things, and in preserving the recollection of all the principles which we have established, especially of the most essential of them.

Accordingly, it is well to pay a scrupulous attention to existing phænomena and to the sensations, to the general sensations for general things, and to the particular sensations for particular things.

In a word, we must take note of this, the immediate evidence with which each of these judicial faculties furnishes us; for, if we attend to these points, namely, whence confusion and fear arise, we shall divine the causes correctly, and we shall deliver ourselves from those feelings, tracing back the heavenly phænomena to their causes, and also all the others which present themselves at every step, and inspire the common people with extreme terror.

Display More

Here is where my rudimentary Greek is a handicap. I *so* wish I was more fluent to be able to read the original text better. I'm working on that. In the meantime, Yonge provides another perspective.

In this section, Epicurus is specifically discussing with Herodotus celestial phenomena (many explanations of the motions of the sun, of the rising and setting of the stars, of the eclipses and similar phænomena) HOWEVER he does also mention everything which is not known but indirectly. That last part is still a hang-up for me. But isn't the Epicurean atomic theory something that is "not known but indirectly"? I really need to read Philodemus on this. What is only know "indirectly" must be only ascertained through analogy with what is sensed directly, right? And once we come up with a satisfactory explanation that dispels terror, we can stop our investigation. Or do I have that wrong?

Epicurus says that what principally contributes to trouble the spirit of men is that men think the sun, planets, moon, stars, etc., are gods out to punish humans for actions in contradiction to the will of these superior beings.

So, Epicurus states that "if we attend to these points (i.e., material causes of these phenomena), namely, whence confusion and fear arise (i.e., when we attribute divine properties to the planets, etc.), we shall divine the causes correctly (i.e., they are only material objects composed of atoms and void)."

SO, am I reading too much into the Bailey translation? It definitely appears from my reading here that Epicurus is not necessarily talking in the general sense about researching the causes of all phenomena although he does bring up the "everything which is not known but indirectly." And is talking about "all [other phenomena] which present themselves at every step" which may "inspire the common people with extreme terror." It appears to me that Epicurus is talking about confronting all phenomena, both the directly sensed and indirectly known, with a commitment to the fundamental teaching that The Universe Is Atoms and Void. Which, for us "moderns" - shall we say - is not a huge stretch for our minds. I'm getting stuck on the multiple explanations for phenomena within that "All is atoms and void" mindset. Do we go after the "real" cause or surmise a "good enough" cause and wait for someone else to say it's not A it's B. And as long as B is a material and not a supernatural cause, we incorporate that into our knowledge and move along. But we OURSELVES as Epicureans shouldn't go looking for THE cause if we have a "good enough" explanation?

If a scientist is troubled by their search for the "real" cause of a disease or the "real" cause of the birth of the universe or the "real" cause of the mass of a particle in the Higgs Field (I'm out of my depth here!), can they be an Epicurean if that search troubles their mind? They don't feel fear or terror from a vengeful deity, but is that anxiety/trouble incompatible with an Epicurean art to living?

My primary concern is with my interpretation of (especially) portions the Letter to Herodotus that sounds like "We don't need to investigate phenomena to find how they actually happen. All we need is an explanation that fits with our sense experience and doesn't make us wonder at our fear the phenomena anymore." I see this (admittedly maybe an incorrect interpretation) as unsatisfying personally. I'm curious as to the workings of the universe, the large and the small. So, I'm both airing my concerns and asking for other interpretations.

I also need to read Philodemus's treatise on methods of inference. But Let's start with the Letter to Herodotus. That's what brought me to this point most recently.

To make it easier to follow the argument, I'm going to replace "solstices, settings and risings, eclipses and the like" or "risings and settings and solstices and eclipses and all kindred subjects" with the simpler "them." The letter text is bold. My notes are italic.

Letter to Herodotus (excerpt)

[79]"But when we come to subjects for special inquiry,there is nothing in the knowledge of them that contributes to our happiness (μακάριον); but those who are well-informed about such matters and yet are ignorant what the heavenly bodies really are, and what are the most important causes of phenomena, feel

quite as much fear as those who have no such special information--nay, perhaps even greater fear, when the curiosity excited by this additional knowledge cannot find a solution or understand the subordination of these phenomena to the highest causes.

The basic argument here as I see it is:

• We have people with special knowledge of phenomena.
• There is nothing in knowledge of the phenomena that contributes to our happiness (μακάριον)
  
• Those who are well informed are just as fearful as those without special knowledge.
  
• Those with special knowledge may even be more fearful due to their curiosity exciting/agitating them and their inability to find a solution.
  

"Hence, if we discover more than one cause that may account for them, as we did also in particular matters of detail, [80] we must not suppose that our treatment of these matters fails of accuracy, so far as it is needful to ensure our tranquillity and happiness (ἀτάραχον καὶ μακάριον ἡμῶν).

This seems to be saying "If we come up with more than one possible cause, that's fine." I don't know what he's saying in " we must not suppose that our treatment... Fails of accuracy." It seems to be we only have to consider it accurate if it ensures our tranquility and happiness. That's enough. It doesn't matter if it accurately reflects reality.

When, therefore, we investigate the causes of them, as of all that is unknown, we must take into account the variety of ways in which analogous occurrences happen within our experience ; while as for those who do not recognize the difference between what is or comes about from a single cause and that which may be the effect of any one of several causes, overlooking the fact that the objects are only seen at a distance, and are moreover ignorant of the conditions that render, or do not render, peace of mind impossible --all such persons we must treat with contempt.

Who do we treat with contempt? Those who don't recognize what comes from single or multiple causes and are ignorant of what provides for peace of mind. Is the research into the causes of phenomena itself contemptible? Or is it the ignorance of what brings peace of mind?

If then we think that an event could happen in one or other particular way out of several, we shall be as tranquil when we recognize that it actually comes about in more ways than one as if we knew that it happens in this particular way.

My hang up here is the "if we knew" phrase. If we *think* something happens a certain way (with no proof other than our "good enough" speculation), we can be done and don't need to investigate further. Or is this saying we can accept it could happen *this* way, we can be tranquil. Then later we find out it's another way, we're still tranquil. It doesn't affect us IF we're open to multiple explanations? But we don't go looking to solve which way is correct?

...

[82] But mental tranquillity means being released from all these troubles and cherishing a continual remembrance of the highest and most important truths.

So, we need to continually remember the "most important truths." Is this what Cassius was talking about when he mentioned we need to keep in mind no supernatural explanations, etc.,in podcast episode 27?

"Hence we must attend to present feelings and sense perceptions, whether those of mankind in general or those peculiar to the individual, and also attend to all the clear evidence available, as given by each of the standards of truth. For by studying them we shall rightly trace to its cause and banish the source of disturbance and dread, accounting for celestial phenomena and for all other things which from time to time befall us and cause the utmost alarm to the rest of mankind.

Here Epicurus says explicitly that we "study" the feelings and sense perceptions and "clear evidence" to arrive at a "rightly-traced" cause of phenomena. Then we banish fear and dread. No supernatural causes. No superstition. But by study, can he mean research as we would understand it. I get the impression Epicurus didn't want his students studying astronomy and other subjects. Is the clear evidence just what we sense? I see the sun as that large, then it must be that large. Thunder could be produced by A, B, or C. A is good enough for me, I'm not going to investigate whether it's B or C. I shouldn't care which one as long as the one I choose makes me not fear something.

I'm still getting the impression that Epicurus was not advocating open-ended, empirical research into a topic. I'm reading this letter as his advocating:

• looking at a particular phenomena
• gaining information through your senses
• feeling pleasure/pain in your reaction to it
• thinking of analogous events/situations
• coming up with a satisfactory "good enough" explanation that assuages your fear of that phenomena
• and moving on.

If at a later date, someone says "it happens this way," you go "oh, okay" and accept that. But you don't go looking for explanations if more than one will suffice. Maybe this, maybe that. It doesn't matter as long as I accept a non-supernatural explanation but don't get hung up on the "right" answer. That doesn't appeal to me. I personally enjoy contemplating this kind of thing, reading about theories, having my brain twisted in a pretzel by quantum physics, string theory, black holes, etc. I don't fear these phenomena. So does that lack of fear matter here?

I also realize we're dealing with a 2,000 year old philosophy. Epicurus didn't envision string theory, etc. Am I putting a round Epicurean peg in a 21st century square hole?

I'm about 3/4 of the way through episode 27. I swear I didn't know this was the topic before I posted here Talk about serendipity! I'll listen to the rest then review Epicurus's writings and continue to post.

I agree this is an important topic!