I would find that fascinating.
Along those lines, I just listened to a podcast with Ben and David Crystal talking about their new book Everyday Shakespeare with lines for different days of the year
- Yet, we do now have science.
- We do now believe there is some way to understand the world other than by preferred belief systems.
- We do now recognize the relationships of the species.
- We do now understand far more about the universe in which we live.
- We do now know that consciousness is inside the brain rather than floating around as a mist, or a spirit outside of it.
- We do now even know how to create intelligence.
- So, there are reasons for optimism.
I wanted to break those out in to individual assertions to address each in turn and to try and turn this thread back into an exploration of Epicurus and his philosophy. We've gone far afield in this particular thread 
.
Oh yes, if we are considering the whole line of hominid evolution then certainly brain size has markedly increased. I thought we were just talking about our species.
Yes, sorry for talking past each other. My only point for all that was to illustrate that over the course of evolution our "human" brains have changed considerably. However, since H. sapiens came on the scene 10s if not hundreds of millenia ago, we've basically had the same brain structures.
This tells me that those living in caves and hunting mammoth were as clever, curious, and seeking of understanding of their world as Epicurus was as Lucretius was as I am. We don't inhabit some lofty perch from which we can "look down" on our forebears. We have more information, but I wouldn't say we necessarily have more wisdom.
Don, though I appreciate the insightfulness of your perspective (brain hasn't changed since species began) I hope you are wrong
The brain has changed dramatically in volume and structure since our early hominin ancestors. I believe that photo comparison from the Smithsonian is comparing early hominin brain size to "modern" humans 200,000 years ago. The general timeframe for homo sapiens (that "sapiens" had always struck me as being a little to full of ourselves!) appearing seems to be at least 300,000 per this article:
"In the case of H. sapiens, known remains only date back some 300,000 years"
It sounds like you're headed toward the ideas expressed by the "extended mind" thesis.
Extended mind thesis - Wikipedia
Rejection of science, diversion into "alternative facts", and unfounded intellectual belief systems, based on preference rather than any objective data, are getting us into trouble. In this era of planetary perspective we need to be objective, but many reject that simply out of preference.
Just a word of caution (not that I disagree!!), but don't start heading too fast or too far into contemporary political ramifications or discussions of those ideas. Just a heads up.
"Has the human brain changed in the last couple of thousand years?"...And, to answer IMO, the human brain has changed little in the ensuing 2000+ years.
I would completely agree. In fact, I would argue the human brain hasn't changed much since we evolved to evade predators, organize hunts, gather beneficial plants, and begin to tell stories around the fire. Human brains seem to have taken their modern shape about 300,000 years ago. The rest is culture.
We'll put, Martin .
I would add that what has changed in 2000+ years is culture. Human nature is pretty much the same.
All the way back to Gilgamesh and Enkidu, 4000+ years ago, the stories talk about the fear of death, the search for immortality, the grief of losing loved ones, desire for sex, and so on. The Babylonians, the Egyptians, the ancient Indians and Persians, the ancient Greeks and Romans, the Medieval philosophers, were all addressing how we, as finite mortal beings, make sense of and interact with an infinite cosmos. How do we come to grips with the fact that we die? How do we skillfully understand our desires? The culture in which we humans all live has changed, but the fundamental questions they were addressing with their religions and philosophies remain.
That presentation looks very impressive
That is impressive. I admit I had NO idea about all that concerning Cyrano de Bergerac!! Thanks for sharing!
While the phrase lathē biōsas is mentioned specifically by Plutarch and Julian, the sentiment has echoes elsewhere in the philosophy. The link above is my translation and commentary on those "characteristics of the Epicurean sage" as outlined by Diogenes Laertius that, from my perspective, illustrate this concept of "keeping one's head down" or, at least, not seeking out fame or not being concerned with making a name for oneself.
Welcome aboard, Cyrano !!
You'll find several of us are fans of Greenblatt's book.
If you're looking for an excellent and accessible, even conversational, introduction to Epicurus's philosophy, we recommend Dr. Emily Austin 's Living for Pleasure. You'll also find our interviews with her elsewhere in this forum.
I simply suggested that we shouldn't waste resources trying to educate all children because a great deal of them do not have a sufficient inclination towards education...
It's the elite of society that really needs education. It's the statesmen, the public servants, the military officers, the doctors in public hospitals etc. Almost anybody who is paid by the public purse and entrusted with responsibility over other people's lives should possess a superb education and should always be a person that is morally and intellectually outstanding and not someone you could easily meet cheering in a WWE event.
Epicurus welcomed everyone to the Garden to learn his philosophy. If you're advocating "education" only for the "elite of society," we may need to define what it is that each of us mean by the word "education." What you are describing strikes me as something Cicero might advocate, especially when you use references like someone cheering at a WWE event. Epicurus didn't play to the crowd, but he left the door open to *anyone* - regardless of social status - who was curious to enter.
There's also the need for an informed citizenry. That is something that has been neglected and needs to be part of any public educational system. I do agree that teachers are woefully undervalued, overworked, overwhelmed, and underpaid.
I don't think "lathē biosas" is a goal. I would characterize it as a strategy... Or is it a tactic? I get those two confused. It seems to me to be more of a skillful means to navigate the vicissitudes of the opinions of the hoi polloi and to assess what is important and what is not in living a pleasurable life.
The phrase is misunderstood and mistranslated as some kind of call to being a hermit or recluse, and I vehemently disagree with that.
Fwiw, here's a thread started in 2020 on this topic...
Happy Hogmanay everybody!! Here's to remembering the pleasant memories of "auld lang syne" and looking forward to the pleasures awaiting in 2024.
This assumes that all people have a special gift or talent waiting to be discovered and nurtured. This is an old Western humanist notion that I personally don't think is as true as we'd like to think. Some (probably most) people just don't have any hidden talent and that's ok. This mentality is liberating because it stops us from pressuring kids to 'prove themselves' or 'make something of themselves'. What if just accept that the most valid reason to stick around is to just be: to give pleasure and to take pleasure.
I should probably rephrase my original rephrasing again in light of your objection, but I'll just forge ahead. Upon reflection, I don't think every person has some innate, hidden "God-given" "special gift" or talent that needs uncovering. I do think everyone is interested in something, but without exposing students to a broad range of topics, they may never have another opportunity in having a glimpse of a wider world that's available to them, especially in smaller, rural communities. Speaking from a US perspective, as that's my background and experience.
I would agree that providing an education in the value of pleasure in one's life would be positive.
I don't think a strictly vocational education that it sounded to me like you were advocating is a positive direction. Are you implying only a select elite should be educated? You've also used the term "real talent," but are you referring to the select few who have "real talent" with the hoi polloi somehow being given a lesser education:
it would be better to pick those that have real talent and focus on educating them so that they can assume upon maturity those jobs and responsibilities that require specialization and education.
once I am finished with the book I have started
By the way, we all highly recommend Dr. Emily Austin's book Living for Pleasure as an excellent and very accesible introduction to the philosophy. We had the pleasure of interviewing her:
Welcome aboard, tariq . Thank you for sharing your story.
You'll find a number of us here found Epicurus after involvment (some more, some less) with Stoicism. I "discovered" Epicurus's philosophy via Marcus Aurelius and some general intro to philosophy books.
There's no mobile "app" but the forum software works very well on a browser on a mobile phone or tablet. In fact, the vast majority of my posts have been via mobile.
In the meantime, glad to have you here. Check out the threads and resources here, and looking forward to your contributions to the discussion.
The forum logo no longer appears at the top of the Home Page on mobile.
I'm seeing the logo. Using an Android (Pixel 6) and a DuckDuckGo browser. See image.
There are millions of insignificant events that can't possibly be predetermined.
The predetermined nature of all our choices is exactly what the current crop of the "no free will" crowd says. Their contention is that if we knew the position of every atom and the physical laws that pertained to them, it would be possible to accurately know what would happen next ad infinitum. Just because we don't know how to do that yet doesn't negate the "fact" that there's no free will.
Here are some videos to react to...
It's also a great reference work for questions about the content of On Nature.
