Posts by Don
Listen to the latest Lucretius Today Podcast! Episode 226 is now available. We begin (with the help of Cicero's Epicurean spokesman) the first of a series of episodes to analyze the Epicurean view of the nature of the gods.
-
-
I'm reading Mitchell's blog.
Undetermined - a response to Robert Sapolsky. Part 1 - a tale of two neuroscientistsFree will is in the air. Among neuroscientists at least, the question of whether we are in control of our actions has been attracting renewe...www.wiringthebrain.comI was originally attracted to Dennett's compatibilism stance, because I wanted to keep my free will but was enamored of the scientific (read: deterministic) arguments. However, that stance seems less tenable now to me. It's still a deterministic wolf in free will clothes.
Mitchell, on the other hand, seems just as hard-nosed scientifically as Sapolsky and Dennett but appears at first blush to provide a mechanism for free will, or more accurately maybe free agency. That line, which I am still very much exploring, seems more "compatible" with Epicurus' position.
-
I've prattled on long enough for now... Satisfied, Cassius
Yes, very satisfied, thank you!
I do hope my good-natured invocation of your name in my post came across that way Thanks for the nudge!
I've been looking around about Kevin J Mitchell and found this review of his book with links to blog posts of his reacting to Sapolsky:
Book review – Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free WillA tightly argued and compelling case in favour of free will, Free Agents provides thought-provoking ideas that are relevant far beyond this debate.inquisitivebiologist.comMitchell's position seems very interesting and possibly fruitful. Nothing more from me at the moment, but posting here to share.
-
I noticed waay back on post #34, Cassius called me out for re-initiating this thread and then stepping back, grabbing popcorn, and watching it all unfold. In deference to him, I feel I should weigh in BUT I have greatly enjoyed the erudite and in-depth discussion taking place!! You all have *obviously* given this topic a great deal of thought. And I *fully* concur and applaud Cassius's "administrative note" to keep everything in context. My nudge just.. yesterday?...way back on post @20 has generated...I'd even say "caused" ... some wonderful and thought-provoking posts and far exceeded what I had anticipated. Thank you all!
And, thank you to Kalosyni for posting the info about Kevin J. Mitchell. I was completely unaware of him, but I'll have to put his book Free Agents on my list now!
I'm afraid my contribution is going to be woefully inadequate to this conversation, but I'll lay my cards on the table...first general, then specifically Epicurean...
There is nothing that doesn't have a cause. There is no uncaused caused or an effect that comes into being sui generis with no antecedent cause. That just seems simple physical reality to me. However, everything has numerous - if not infinite - causes. All those lines of causation collide and contribute to any physical, material phenomenon... from the toppling of a particular tree in a particular forest to the decisions I make. I like the words used earlier (by Pacatus ?) that the "choices" (and I'll use "scare quotes" for now) we make are constrained choices. Theoretically, I have an infinite or at least innumerable options to choose from at any given moment. As I write this, I could decide:
- just to randomly punch the keys and produce gibberish
- or to stop typing and to not hit send
- or to throw my laptop across the room
- or to attempt to chew the corner off my screen or...
but I feel I am a rational being with something to relate to my Epicurean friends on the forum, and so I continue to type and relay my thoughts. My choices are, in practice, not infinite or innumerable but constrained to a finite selection of realistic choices I could be predicted to take. Does that make them "determined"? Can they be predicted? Maybe, within a statistical margin of error...but does that mean they're determined? I guess it depends on your definition of "determined."
I feel there was discussion on the difference between deterministic and fatalistic. I think that remains significant. Even Sapolsky allows for change...although I admit I'm not sure I followed his argument. Change seems to go against his other parts of his argument. If by determined, we mean causes with effects, that's true to some extent. If by fated, we mean the outcome could have been no other than it was... that one I have problems with... but I can't necessarily articulate (at this point) why.
Take the view from the other end of my choices or the effects... looking back over my own life and those of my relatives and ancestors, I can see the effects of individual choices on the future lives of myself and those others. But those past decisions, even now, don't feel determined. Some feel random. But others feel like there was a "decision" that was weighed and made. Again, causes leading to effects becoming causes of future events leading to... you get the idea.
So... that all didn't get us anywhere... "Thanks, Don."
But I also promised some Epicurean thoughts...
We've seen Epicurus's message to Menoikeus: "Remember that what will be is not completely within our control nor completely outside our control, so that we will not completely expect it to happen nor be completely disappointed if it does not happen." (127, Saint-Andre) This, to me, recognizes the element of indeterminacy of our lives. Somethings are going to happen to us that we have no control over; and somethings will not happen for us regardless of whether want it or not.
We also read in verses 134-135 about Fate not being a god because Fate does things haphazardly and randomly. Epicurus also clearly states that we can assign praise and blame to people's actions, directly opposite of the direction Sapolsky wants to go. BUT Sapolsky and Epicurus both agree that bad actors - people who do things against the social contract - need to be removed from society for the good of the other members of society. Sapolsky just thinks there shouldn't be blame assigned to the actions.
The character of Torquatus in On Ends also has a pertinent quote (emphasis added): "In a free hour, when our power of choice is untrammelled and when nothing prevents our being able to do what we like best, every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain avoided. But in certain emergencies and owing to the claims of duty or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures (i.e., chooses) pains to avoid worse pains." The Epicurean position is clearly that we are not constrained in our ability to make choices... but it seems to me that those choices are predicated on the character of the individual, the taking into account the future effects of those choices which will, in turn, be the *causes* of those future pleasures or pains. The choices we make are *still* constrained by taking into account what we desire weighed against the future states those choices will engender.
I've prattled on long enough for now... Satisfied, Cassius
-
Kalosyni I have not read Harris's book. On my list but not yet.
Hey Don - You started this latest iteration of the Determinism saga and then you never weighed in yourself!!!
Sorry. Things came up. It's turned into a little of "Let the games begin!" It's on my agenda for this evening.
-
Kalosyni I have not read Harris's book. On my list but not yet.
Here's a debate between Dennett and Sapolsky. Skimmed thru but applicable.
-
I'm going to resurrect this thread since I think there are some good, thought-provoking points, and it mentions Sapolsky who recently came out with an even more provocative book than Behave:
Determined
A SCIENCE OF LIFE WITHOUT FREE WILLDetermined by Robert M. Sapolsky: 9780525560975 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: BooksThe instant New York Times bestseller “Excellent…Outstanding for its breadth of research, the liveliness of the writing, and the depth of humanity it…www.penguinrandomhouse.comThere's also a recent Clear and Vivid episode:
Robert Sapolsky: You Have No Choice - Clear+Vivid with Alan AldaLearn 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.stThe points earlier in the thread of determinism vs fatalism are very pertinent to this discussion. So, here we go again.... Discuss.... More later from me.
-
-
Right. We have access to digitized papyri and other resources, but they're not all going to be translated (unfortunately).
BUT we can still verify scholars' readings and, with the help of people like Bryan and Twentier , get translations literally right from the source. This is another incentive for *everyone* having at least a rudimentary understanding of the ancient Greek, at least the alphabet (and paleography... And grammar... And... And... And ).
That second question is a good one, and would have to be answered on a case by case basis. Hopefully, books and papers and websites cite what translation they're using or if it's original.
LOL. None of this is easy. And taking translations at face value and without question is fraught with pitfalls!
-
The idea of fulfilling natural and necessary needs while sitting in a cave by drinking water and eating bread is a state of idealized sanctification. While it focuses on the relatively low hardware requirements concerning human material needs, it ignores all the other variables to our lives in our ever-changing material conditions.
While there are definitely times and places in world history where sitting in a cave and subsisting on bread and water would be exactly the right course of conduct, doing as some do and setting up such states of existence as not only desirable, but the highest life desirable for a human being, would be better described in my view as "supremely stupid."
I feel the urge to address the "cave and bread" metaphor as it raises its head yet again. This is a favorite metaphor of Cassius's to illustrate the popular but misguided conception of Epicurean philosophy as ONLY satisfying the "natural and necessary" desires. As I understand it, the "cave" signifies the idea that Epicurus walled himself off from the world in the Garden, like some kind of medieval anchorite:
Anchorites: Medieval Women And Men Walled Up AliveDuring the Middle Ages, thousands of women and men chose to be walled up alive. Read on to discover why anchorites were willingly immured.www.thecollector.comThe popular "cave" isolation idea is simply wrong. The Garden, as I hope I've shown in my impromptu presentation and longer article available on the forum, wasn't isolated from Athenian society. The primary reason Epicurus taught in the Garden is that, as I understand, it was private property and he could do what he wanted there. The gymnasiarchs and others had no control or authority over what he taught there. It was what we would call "a safe space." What happens in the Garden stays in the Garden, to riff on a Vegas ad campaign. But that doesn't mean it was "cut off" or walled off from society (insert disgruntled frustrated noise here)... but I digress.
The "bread" is taken as literal instructions on how to live from the Letter to Menoikeus and other snippets taken out of context. I addressed the "maza (barley bread or porridge) and spring water" in my Menoikeus commentary to my satisfaction at least... but I am but a lone voice crying in the wilderness... (insert disgruntled frustrated noise here)
To take one random example of this conception, here's one of the first results in a web search on [Epicurus live on bread]
QuoteJust as important to the Epicurean ethic is a reduction of desires. If we want less, we will be happy with less. The Epicurean path to happiness is not a result of an excess of external pleasures or material goods. Live simply, and without an excess of wealth or luxury, says Epicurus, and with that proclamation he very well may lay claim to the title of “first western minimalist!” Moderation, temperance, and cheerfulness are Epicurean virtues; unbridled luxury and feverish desire Epicurean vices.
From my readings, Epicurus does want us to look at our desires practically and with discretion. This website's "If we want less, we will be happy with less" is *almost* right, in my opinion. I would expand that to say "In times of want, we will be happy with less because we understand that we don't require - it is not a necessity - to have luxuries or even variety in all circumstances if we recognize the pleasure right in front of us. However, if we have the opportunity to partake of luxuries and variety with a minimum of stress, enjoy them! But don't think you *need* them to have a sense of well-being in your life." But that's a little wordy for a breezy podcast website!
I realize the "cave and bread and water" metaphor is a convenient shorthand for this on-going, perpetual, bang-one's-head-against-the-wall frustration with most/many popular and academic takes on Epicurus and his school and philosophy. That is exactly one of the reasons I like and recommend Dr. Emily Austin's Living for Pleasure so highly! I think she got it exactly right...but again... voice, Wilderness, (insert disgruntled frustrated noise here).
-
Quote
Nonetheless, numerous editions of Philodemus’ works, especially early ones, are unreliable.
I believe she's referring to one's from the 1800's and early 1900's. There's quite a few on Internet Archive.
QuoteMany were not based on a reading of the papyri themselves, but rather on the disegni, which are frequently wrong, and this led editors to be bolder about changing the texts presented in these copies, filling in gaps, and interpreting the results than they might have been had they read the papyri instead.
And this is exactly why those digitized papyri online are SO valuable. We all have access unimagined by earlier authors/scholars right at our fingertips.
-
As we mentioned tonight in our Wednesday discussion, Diogenes Laertius says that according to Epicurus or the Epicureans:
[118] And even if the wise man be put on the rack, he is happy.
So next week as we continue to discuss these issues we will want to revisit whether we agree with Cicero's expecting that happiness for an Epicurean is something that is always under our control.
Hicks: Even on the rack the wise man is happy.
Yonge: That even if the wise man were to be put to the torture, he would still be happy.
It's important to remember that the original says εὐδαίμονα not "happy." There's a different connotation! It's not "Happy, ha ha" to my understanding. It's more content, well-being, "I did what I can do" satisfaction with life so to speak.
Trivia: στρεβλωθῇ means "stretch on the wheel or rack, to rack, torture, applied to slaves for the purpose of extracting evidence"
Hicks: When on the rack, however, he will give vent to cries and groans.Yonge: Nor will he groan and howl when he is put to the torture.
So. will the σοφός groan or not?
The original text runs:
[118] κἂν στρεβλωθῇ δ᾽ ὁ σοφός, εἶναι αὐτὸν εὐδαίμονα, [μόνον τε χάριν ἕξειν τὸν σοφόν, καὶ ἐπὶ φίλοις καὶ παροῦσι καὶ ἀποῦσιν ὁμοίως διά τε λόγου184 <καὶ διὰ πράξεως>. ὅτε μέντοι στρεβλοῦται, ἔνθα καὶ μύζει καὶ οἰμώζει.
ὅτε μέντοι στρεβλοῦται, ἔνθα καὶ μύζει καὶ οἰμώζει. There doesn't appear to be a "nor" here:
ὅτε when
μέντοι indeed, however, to be sure
ἔνθα when
μύζει I. (he) murmurs with closed lips, mutters, moans.
(και) οἰμώζει (and) wails aloud, laments
So, Hicks seems to have the upper hand here. This also makes sense in the light of the sage being more affected by the emotions but also "having a sense of well-being" under torture.
-
Those two Vatican Sayings take on an interesting context with today being Valentine's Day
-
Thanks, Nate. I was completely unaware of this link. Just found online:
Epic Poetry and the Origins of Evolutionary Theory – Romanticism and Victorianism on the NetAn article from Romanticism and Victorianism on the Net, on Érudit.www.erudit.org -
Lucretius or Paul: Materialism and theism tested by the nature and the needs ... : Joseph Parrish Thompson : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveBook digitized by Google from the library of University of Michigan and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb.archive.org
-
Of course it's easy for anyone to post their own articles at substack
Which brings up an interesting question: Should more of us be posting to substack to increase the epicurean content "outside our Garden"? Or should we use Cassius' new outlet to simply expand the outlet of voices?
Some Substackers post daily! That amazes me. Cassius committing to a regular bi-weekly level of content is daunting!! Cassius has been doing weekly podcast releases for years. His posting a lengthy Substack article biweekly deserves ΚΥΔΟΣ (kudos)! I barely get a quarterly newsletter out at work!!
I read the new article, too. ΚΥΔΟΣ for that as well! Very impressive and highly referenced with quotes. Well done!!
-
-
-
-
Death being a multifaceted event I find it to be intellectually dishonest for anyone truly interested in philosophy to take the stance that Epicurus writing a will would be hypocritical.
There's a big difference between the process of "dying" and the "state" of "being dead." Epicurus can take pleasure in planning for his legacy while at thesame time being fully aware that his plans may not be followed. He takes pleasure in doing what he is capable of doing.