Posts by Don

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.

Being that Elayne took the time to compose her reply, I want to respond in kind as thoughtfully and respectfully as possible.

Quote

I disagree with Don that it is inferior if a scientist makes pleasure primarily out of doing research, vs some broader collection of pleasures. If that is the most reliable pleasure for the scientist, why wouldn't she choose it? "Moment-by-moment" pleasures _can_ create an overall pleasurable life.

To be clear, I think it's neither inferior nor superior to any other pleasure. If their research gives them a "reliable pleasure", they should, by all means, choose it. And I agree that momentary pleasures can add up to long-term pleasures. My unease was that, in the podcast episode, I interpreted it as if this one activity - scientific research - was all-encompassing. I don't think you can judge someone's well-being on one activity. It seems I may have interpreted this incorrectly, and that the idea being advocated for was a scientific outlook on life.

Quote

I do not think comparing science and profligacy makes sense-- they are nowhere near the same. But I have an implicit assumption here which I need to make clear-- I am talking about a real scientist, one who understands the use of evidence the same way Epicurus did-- because that _is_ science.

Please don't think I was equating science and profligacy. That was not my intention, and I apologize if that's what came across! My only intention in citing PD 10 and and the Letter to Menoikos was the idea of singling out momentary pleasures without an eye to the sustained pleasures of a pleasurable life overall. I think Cassius and Martin addressed this in Episode 31 when they were talking about Polyaenus concentrating on *just* geometry before coming to Epicurus. Polyaenus - arguably - "broadened his horizons" and realized there was more to life than geometry although he didn't abandon his studies. He merely broadened his interests and integrated geometry into a broader study of nature. Again, my concern in bringing up PD 10 was concentrating on one kind of pleasure - the pursuit of scientific research in this case - and, as I mentioned above, I may have misinterpreted what was being conveyed.

Quote

Such a person would not have supernatural fears or be prone to non-evidence based contagious social ideas in the first place, because of having a scientific approach. That is the person's immunity to being dragged off track away from pleasure.

Now, we're getting to the idea that Martin so nicely put it in Episode 31 in talking about implicit vs explicit philosophies of life...

Quote

My scientist was not really hypothetical. My dad is a retired physicist and my mother was a mathematician. I never knew anyone who _only_ did science, lol, but I grew up surrounded by scientists and their families, and they were among the happiest (meaning, for me, experiencing sustained pleasure) people I knew. They were not beset by superstition... but they were not explicitly philosophers either. Many of them spent long waking hours pursuing their research projects. They all had families whom they enjoyed spending time with as well, and like my dad, they often spent family time teaching their children about science. Some of my most pleasurable memories involve my dad teaching me physics, from early childhood. It was a central pleasure, which seems to me very similar to Epicurus' instructions about studying nature with friends.

I observe that if a person is securely absent supernatural beliefs, they often tend to intuitively do the hedonic calculus, and they are often quite skilled without a sense that they have a philosophy. And if they have lived a long life making wise choices but have not formally written down or thought out a philosophy, I am very resistant to saying their happy lives were just due to blind luck. No-- they were happy due to their understanding of the scientific process and their natural ability to choose pleasure (including sometimes experiencing pain for greater pleasure).

"...without a sense that they have a philosophy..." From my understanding, this is exactly what Martin was saying about implicit and explicit philosophies. Everyone has a "philosophy of life" whether they express it that way or not. We all operate under certain paradigms, and I don't think "blind luck" has much to do with it. Although some people *do* operate that way, careening from drama to drama, highs to lows to highs to lows, with no underpinning framework.

I firmly believe that you don't have to formally acknowledge your "philosophy" - or even think through the ramifications of it - to have a "philosophy." That would be an implicit philosophy, one you don't give much thought to but which has grown up around you, within you, and with which you make decisions in your life. One's "understanding of the scientific process and their natural ability to choose pleasure (including sometimes experiencing pain for greater pleasure)" *is* their philosophy of life. As Godfrey said in an earlier post, Epicurus did not necessarily create the Canon or his Philosophy. It was a natural process which he examined, codified, and refined to make it easier for people to study and to make practical use of. That's not saying some don't stumble across it as a natural process. I would say it's even probably more likely that some will make use of Epicurean ideas sans Epicureanism in our modern secular society. Our modern scientific worldview owes a debt to Epicurus and Lucretius after all!

Quote

As an adult, I have met non-scientist atheists who understood just enough about science to feel secure in rejecting un-evidenced notions and social fads, and I have observed that these people, over time, develop great skill in choosing pleasure-- but they are not philosophers. This evidence, right in front of me, prevents me from making assertions that someone must have a philosophy to wisely choose a pleasurable life.

Epicurus was able to develop his philosophy because it (IMO) is the _only_ one you can have if you are a scientist and pay attention to reality. No other philosophy holds up at all, under scrutiny.

"...but they are not philosophers..." That is exactly my point! You don't have to be a capital-P Philosopher to have a "philosophy of life," an in-grained operating system, if you will, by which you make decisions about our life. And, again, Epicurus was observing Nature, how it worked, and examining it then teaching others to *consciously* apply what he observed and learned instead of having to make it up as they went along.

Quote

I am extremely glad I found Epicurus-- but I was also already practicing the philosophy without calling it one, and it was functioning well.

Exactly!! You were practicing the "philosophy" before you were practicing the Philosophy! I really think Godfrey really hit on something with...

Quote from Godfrey

Epicurus didn't invent the Canon, he observed and articulated it. It's a natural process involving pleasure.

We can implicitly be "practicing Epicureans" without knowing that's what we're doing! And that may be enough for some people, but I still maintain that it's better to examine your philosophy of life explicitly to see where it's working, where it's not, and to see if there are others - either ancients or moderns, whether they be philosophers or other thinkers - who have worked out the kinks so to speak so you don't have to! It's not a requirement, but I think it can lead to a wider perspective and a deeper understanding of why you do what you do and how to do it better, more efficiently, and with more wisdom (It's a philosophy, after all).

Quote

As far as obstacles go, for me they have not been alternative philosophies and superstitions but normal griefs of life-- which I feel fully when they come up. I am not afraid of my feelings, and similar to Epicurus I would say that the most severe griefs do not last in their most intense form very long, and the milder griefs are not difficult to cope with, when one focuses on activities that bring pleasure-- for me, the main antidote to grief is social pleasures. Hugging my friends and family, singing together, eating and talking together, etc. I have had many griefs in life, and that is what has worked for me-- I don't tend to philosophize about grief. Often pleasure is strong even after losses, when I think about how fortunate I was to have known and loved the person who is now gone, and take time to remember them. I find pleasure in the sensation of poignancy and nostalgia.

Elayne , I thought this was eloquent and poignant, and I couldn't agree more! For myself, I have found that one of the best ways of dealing with grief - especially at funerals - is to embrace the celebration of the person's life. The loss is felt - and felt deeply - but I agree with Epicurus when he says that we need to take pleasure in memories for what was. I felt this way before I found Epicurus, too!

I think we're getting hung up on the word "philosophize." Your "philosophy" about grief comes through loudly, beautifully, and eloquently here, and it is a full, rich philosophy.

Quote

What I'm wondering if I hear in Don's words-- and maybe not, Don -- please correct me if I'm wrong-- is an implication that pleasures must not just be sustained but somehow of a superior type, perhaps what I call a "meaning project", and I disagree with that. Some people do require a meaning project for pleasure, but not everyone does. It is a matter of temperament and likely neurology. But I strongly disagree that there are inferior and superior pleasures, if the pleasures are truly equivalent in their fullness. There are no trivial vs important pleasures. That is idealism and abstract thinking creeping in. Then you wind up with people saying things like "we should not try to have pleasure but meaningfulness"-- but what is meaningfulness without pleasure? What is beauty? Why would anyone want any of these things without the pleasure in them?

No, I do not think some pleasures are of a "superior" type. And I don't think there is any "meaning" to life - other than to live a sustained, pleasurable life while we are living. There is no Ultimate Meaning. We are atoms and void in this particular arrangement for a finite time. There is no meaning imposed by some supernatural being. Those who try to say their life has "meaning" - I think - are confusing it with well-being, satisfaction, ... dare I say pleasure.

I do not think there are superior and inferior pleasures. I *do* think there are positive and negative choices leading to more or less pain and/or pleasure. That's why I feel we can say the profligate who over-indulge in drinking, drugs, sex, etc., are not making "good" (not in a Platonic sense) decisions for themselves. That way does NOT lead to sustained pleasurable lives. A chilled glass of wine in the shade on a warm, summer day can be enjoyed with pleasure. Four bottles of whiskey imbibed in the street on a cold winter night may have brought pleasure for a short time, but it wil NOT lead to a sustained pleasurable life.

And I don't think there are trivial or important pleasures. There may be simple vs complex pleasures, but I don't think that's the same thing. As a matter of fact, I can walk through the woods, look up, and feel a wash of simple pleasure as I take in the delicate verdant patterns of sunlight through the leaves. I can take pleasure or satisfaction from completing a complex task with many steps.

Quote

It is quite possible to intuitively understand and practice this without ever being a philosopher, and I've seen it done and don't even think it is extraordinarily rare. We don't see those folks on our philosophy forums, because they probably don't even know it is a thing, but they are out there enjoying life.

No argument there! We may be having a semantic argument over definitions in the end. In many ways, we are ALL philosophers in that we will intuitively have some kind of "philosophy" to live by, that's one's "implicit" philosophy or as Cambridge defines it: the way that someone thinks about life and deals with it. I still maintain that examining one's small-p philosophy and making it an extrinsic philosophy is valuable rather than making it up as you go along. It can ground you. It can provide a broader context. It can be an eye-opening experience. But it's not necessary. One can go about one's life with one's own personal "way that [one] thinks about life and deals with it." But, over the millennia, many people have given many different ways of life a lot of thought. One doesn't have to be a Lone Ranger.

BINGO! Explicit vs implicit! Those were the words and concepts I was thinking of. You articulated it much better than I did. Thank you!! That was an interesting discussion, gentlemen!

I must admit, however, that it was a little odd to hear my posts read out loud.

Quote from Cassius

I suspect that the reason Don enjoyed it, and I *know* the reason I enjoyed it, is that I really wouldn't consider this to be "rap," at least not in the American sense. Not sure what to call it but it is very enjoyable music!

Oh, I'm fine with the rap part. While I'm not an aficionado of the genre, I can appreciate the spoken word style. My worry was that I've seen a lot of bad rap pieces with science or history themes that I feared it might be a bad parody style. It was not! Quality production and spot on lyrics! Again, well done!

Elayne : Thank you for that heartfelt response! With that additional context, I don't think we're as far apart as either of us originally thought . I'll try and give a fuller reply this evening.

As a teaser, I do not think pleasures need to be "superior" in some way. Stay tuned...