Posts by Don

Dan McClellan does a good quick intro to the mistaken idea of a god creating the universe ex nihilo...

123f. ἐναργὴς γαρ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ γνῶσις.

• Here's our δέ "on the other hand."
• ἐναργὴς [δέ] ἐστιν αὐτῶν ἡ γνῶσις

"And the knowledge (ἡ γνῶσις (gnōsis)) of them (θεοί "gods", note the plural here) is ἐναργὴς." But what does ἐναργὴς mean?

LSJ provides two primary definitions:

• visible, palpable, in bodily shape, properly of gods appearing in their own forms (in Homer); so of a dream or vision; ex., ἐναργὴς ταῦρος "in visible form a bull, a very bull"
• manifest to the mind's eye, distinct

Epicurus can't mean the first meaning since he's adamant that the gods don't interact with humans. But the second definition coincides with his contention (and the idea of the prolepsis of the gods) that the gods are apprehended by the mind only. In first Principal Doctrine's scholia (i.e., a note added to the text by a later author), we read τοὺς θεοὺς λόγῳ θεωρητούς "the gods are conceived of through contemplation by reasoning." We don't - can't! - see the Epicurean gods with our physical eyes as Homer describes seeing the Olympian gods "in visible form." Homer's gods were εναργής in one sense of the word; Epicurus's in the other sense. The truth of the gods' existence in Epicurus's philosophy takes place entirely in our minds by reasoning through their existence by means of contemplation. But through that contemplation, Epicurus asserts that their existence is εναργής "clearly discernible to us / manifest to us in our minds."

This emphasis on contemplation is interesting in light of the characteristic of the Epicurean sage in Diogenes Laertius Book X.30: μᾶλλόν τε εὐφρανθήσεσθαι τῶν ἄλλων ἐν ταῖς θεωρίαις. I continue to maintain that "in contemplation" is the best translation of ἐν ταῖς θεωρίαις for this characteristic of the sage: "The sage will also enjoy themselves more than others in contemplation, speculation, and theorizing." Many translators see this as referring to state festivals and spectacles. I've explored the use of the word elsewhere in Diogenes Laertius' work as well as in Aristotle online. https://sites.google.com/view/epicurean…tion?authuser=0 If the gods are "manifest" in contemplation, this seems consistent with that characteristic of an Epicurean sage.

Here's my take on that word "dogmatize" in relation to the Epicureans:

Quote from waterholic

To be fair, in the same section Philodemus justifies the small sun theory (I just had to make that disclosure).

On the size of the sun, check out Gellar-Goad's chapter in "Epicurus in Rome" (open access)

Lucretius on the Size of the Sun (Chapter 10) - Epicurus in Rome

Epicurus in Rome - February 2023

www.cambridge.org

Oh, and apologies for inadvertently hijacking this thread... You can now return to your previously scheduled programming.

Quote from Cassius

What I think you're talking about is in my mind mainly a tone issue and I agree with your perspective that let's call it "human exceptionaiism" is not at all valid.

Bingo.

Quote from Cassius

our goal should be to dodge every last one of those meteorites for as long as we can do so pleasurably.

Agreed! Duck and cover!

Quote from Cassius

But since we are good Epicureans, we think along the line of Epicurus in providing for the school and for Metrodorus' children after his death, and of Diogenes of Oinoanda in instructing future generations currently unborn, right?

Sure! We take pleasure in planning for the future of our family, of our world, of successive generations, all of that. We know we don't control anything after we die, but there's pleasure to be had in knowing we did all we could do while alive.

That said...

(I get the feeling this is one of those conversations that would be over quick were we to be talking in-person )

My bone of contention is that we should not think humans are somehow exempt from the fate of other species or that we're somehow going to be around to see the "heat death" of the universe or the creation of a new bubble universe (or whatever the fate of our corner of the cosmos will be). Sure, humans are probably going to be around for millennia more or maybe even millions of years in one form or another. Maybe we'll harness the technology to have humans explore into the solar system. But no matter how long we're around, we should not think we have some "special" place in the Divine Plan of the Universe or something. We are living beings like every other living being. Our species will have a lifespan. Our species is mortal, like our Sun. And, I think, we need to be okay with that. The eventual, inevitable death of our species is nothing to us. Carpe the diem here and now.

Quote from Cassius

Paul accusing the "pagans" of being "slaves to the weak and beggarly elements."

I've seen that conincingly interpreted as being slaves to every little jot and tittle - every element - of the biblical Law.

Quote from Cassius

I do not think that humans will be limited to this planet much longer, and after that the solar system, and eventually the galaxy, will be left behind. And it will be entirely reasonable to leave our Sun behind when it eventually seems likely to terminate in some way.

Sure. I'm happy to give you all that, and I have zero opposition to the aspiration of space travel. I'm a Star Trek fan, too. However, after a recent Clear + Vivid episode, I don't expect colonies on the Moon or Mars in my lifetime:

Kelly and Zach Weinersmith: A Second Home on Mars? - Clear+Vivid with Alan Alda

Learn to connect better with others in every area of your life. Immerse yourself in spirited conversations with people who know how hard it is, and yet how…

pca.st

Quote from Cassius

I don't see that viewpoint as any different from the actions of Nature / Venus / Pleasure cited in the opening of book one of Lucretius in spurring all living things on to continue their species. Nature calls us to pursue pleasure as long as we are able, and life is necessary for pleasure.

Yep, I'll agree to that.

I've read your responses rapidly, and I'll post over in the other thread, too. But I'll cut to the chase for me now.

In the scale of the universe or even our cosmos, humans aren't special. Thousands, millions, of species have gone extinct. Eventually, our species will - no doubt - go extinct as well. That's the way things are. Species evolve, exist, then are gone. We were not, we are, we will be no longer... Do we make decisions to protect our individual lives? Of course! Should we make collective decisions to not hasten our species demise? Absolutely! But to imagine our species as somehow able to leap frog the fate of every other species and the eventual far-dstant demise of Earth or the Sun or other suns and other planets strikes me as misplaced . I find it hard to articulate, but the insidious idea that humans can transcend the eventual end of every other thing, strikes me as somehow corrosive to our taking pleasure in this life, this existence, this time.

How merited is that adopted name
Of earth- "The Mother!"- since from out the earth
Are all begotten.

- Lucretius, On The Nature of Things, Book 5

🌍🌎

Quote from Cassius

I do suggest at some future point that Epicureans consider getting together to produce an escape plan when the final end of the earth appears imminent (as Lucretius discusses will occur at some point) but unless some of us are extremely well positioned in a space program, we probably are just as well off leaving that for another day as well.

For some reason, this (I'm assuming) tongue-in-cheek closing paragraph has gnawed at me since I read it. Indulge me in some stream-of-consciousness to work through my nagging unease at Cassius 's light-hearted digression.

One section where Lucretius brings up the end of our world-system is in Book 5:

Quote

For, verily, those things of which we see
The parts and members to have birth in time
And perishable shapes, those same we mark
To be invariably born in time
And born to die. And therefore when I see
The mightiest members and the parts of this
Our world consumed and begot again,
'Tis mine to know that also sky above
And earth beneath began of old in time
And shall in time go under to disaster.

Display More

The "world" again here is mundus, translating the Greek kosmos, which encompasses our world but also our world-system as encompassing the heavens and the whole little ordered shebang of our little corner of The All, To Pan, the universus.

Cassius suggestion that we "consider getting together to produce an escape plan when the final end of the earth appears imminent" maybe makes me uneasy as it seems like human hubris (in that we feel we could somehow escape the inevitable end of our mortal corner of the cosmos) but, I think, it wrankles me since it strikes me as yearning for immortality... maybe not personal but for our species. Everything in our infinite universe is mortal - okay, maybe not the "gods" but we'll leave that for another day. To think that we humans would be spared that mortality as a species goes against the grain of my Epicurean understanding... I think.

In any case, again, I fully realize (I think) that Cassius was reacting to the survival theme of this thread in a light-hearted way, but I felt the necessity (LOL, pun intended... see VS09) to get my unease off my chest.

Definitely nothing at 10pm

For me, Luke Ranieri is still the go-to guy online for Ancient Greek and Latin. For example, a recent video goes deep into vowel length:

Great article find (at least from that excerpt you shared), Pacatus ! I'm looking forward to reading the whole thing.

Quote from Pacatus

The author seems to commit the same “higher pleasure” error mentioned by Cassius above – but does seem to succeed in arguing against the notion that a state of katastematic pleasure somehow obviates the natural, healthy desire for varying kinetic pleasures – on the contrary. And pleasure is pleasure.

I find their use of "highest" unfortunate, but I don't see them making the usual "highest pleasure" mistake many authors do. I personally would agree with the author. One can enjoy every other pleasure more if one's mind isn't troubled and one's body is in (reasonably) good working order. That's my general perspective: we need to find that state of equilibrium and good working order (katastematic) as a ground from which to enjoy the stimulative (kinetic) pleasures of life. Even the kinetic pleasure of good memories generally happens easier if we're not anxious or worried or unhealthy.

That is an impressive piece of writing! Thank you very much for sharing the story of your personal path.

Great thought-provoking post, Martin. Thank you!

In a quick search, I see there's been some academic papers on the topic... Most beyond me in a brief scan of the content so, turning to Wikipedia:

Indeterminism - Wikipedia

"Interpreting causation as a deterministic relation means that if A causes B, then A must always be followed by B. In this sense, war does not cause deaths, nor does smoking cause cancer. As a result, many turn to a notion of probabilistic causation. Informally, A probabilistically causes B if A's occurrence increases the probability of B. This is sometimes interpreted to reflect the imperfect knowledge of a deterministic system but other times interpreted to mean that the causal system under study has an inherently indeterministic nature." (PS. I just realized that article mentions Epicureanism!)

I like where that is headed and would have been (at least consciously) unaware of it without Martin 's post.

Quote from Martin

Such a computer ... would be like a 1:1 scale map of everything

I would go beyond that and offer that you might need multiple universes to compute the outcomes in one universe... It's "conceivable" (ie, I just conceived it ) but completely impractical and maybe useless IF indeterminacy is the way things are.

Wow! There is so much wrong in that chart!

Great first post! Welcome aboard our little boat!

Oh, I didn't mean in any language proficiency way or idiosyncratic way! Sorry if I implied that.

I was thinking literally as in "predictable" in a theoretical way or "predictable" in a practical way.

If - in a given conversation - someone wants to say, theoretically, that in the future some far-advanced hyper-super-quantum computing machine is able to plot the current state of all matter in the universe at every given microsecond... then, yes, theoretically, all future states are "predictable" due to the laws of physics; and the three-body-problem and all other issues raised with chaos theory go away.

If - in another conversation - someone wants to say that "practically-speaking", chaos theory makes it "practically impossible" to predict future states of a given phenomenon outside a given predictability horizon, then it seems it turns into a matter of predictability in a "we'll never be able to predict this 'in our lifetime'" or "we can't predict this" scenario.

So, given all that...

Quote from TauPhi

For this reason, whether we live in a deterministic universe under the illusion of free will or we truly have free will is indistinguishable to us - at least for now.

I would tend to agree with your assessment in your quote there...at least right now as I type this in this conversation

Quote from TauPhi

It also doesn't mean we DON'T live in a fully predictable universe.

I guess it depends on one's definition of "predictable" in any given conversation.