Posts by Mathitis Kipouros

In episode 20 of Lucretius Today there's mention of the possibility of "us being in a 'hypersphere'" and some other mathematical "possibilities" to describe our existence; among them was mentioned the comparison between "beings" that could live in two dimensions compared to us; and then, extrapolating from there, the possibility of there being a 4th dimension of reality that we could not see or understand, as the 2D beings could not see or understand our 3D world. There's a video of Carl Sagan about it here:

As expected, nobody in the podcast said they considered this to be true, or that they accepted these views as valid. I just wanted to post this as an example of the type of paradoxes that may confuse people into thinking that because these mathematical definitions are valid in the realm of math they could be valid in reality automatically, which was pointed out in the show and I appreciated it. This is something I think is not pointed out often enough.

Also in the podcast, I percieved a need of most to justify that even if Epicurus got some things wrong in his physics, "he got most things right" and "it's impressive how he could explain these things", as if there had to be a balance in favor of having gotten the most things right. But there's something that bothers me about trying to say that Epicurus "had a lot of things right" when it comes to physics, as if, if he hadn't, everything else could be discarded as invalid. Ironically, I think there is something platonic about this search for the ultimate truth and most accurate description of our existence, as an ideal state of perfect knowledge; and as such, I think we should be wary of it. Mostly because we're likely to have mistakes when we extend beyond what we can experience immediately, and could suffer from founding ourselves in theories of things we may not even be able to comprehend ever, and when proven wrong or contradicted, it might conflict us.

Whereas, if the physics is seen as something that serves the purpose of giving an adequate context, or better understanding, of our immediate reality, we can accept that they can be good for a while, and then perhaps we could find out they're actually wrong, but that doesn't change our reality. What I'm saying is that Epicurus proposed some theory of physics to give a sufficiently good context to the obvious things we experience in reality, not as a foundation of everything. I'm not saying not to keep on researching and trying to learn about our environment better. I just say that we should do it as I think Epicirus did it: Either for the intrinsic joy that the research activity brings to the researcher, or to give a context that could allow us to better understand our immediate reality and life experience, not as a way to find the ultimate and most accurate foundation of reality; as I understand it, he didn't say that his physics were the foundationi of his whole philosophy, but the Canon is, but I may be wrong about this. But still, with the Canon we can be certain of many things even if the current theory of physics is proven to be wrong afterwards, because it is related to our immediate reality and life experience.

Using the Canon we can be aware that the fact is that not even us can experience an interaction with "beings" in 2D, because even a line in a paper is a 3D thing when looked at the proper scale and perspective. For us, there's no 2D in our immediate experience, as there's no 4D. I'm not saying there's no 4D in the universe, I'm not the owner of the truth, perhaps there is, but most importantly, it doesn't concern me; what I'm saying is that, in our immediate experience there is nothing that could allow us to think there is.

On line with what was talked about in the episode, there might as well be a material end point to the vacuum we now think engulfs all matter in the universe (doesn't make sense to me, but we wouldn't be able to see it anyway), and there might as well be one or many supreme beings out there, creators even, with what we would call supernatural powers, in a more complex reality that we couldn't understand, and, theye may even find in the future that the model por atomic particles allows for them to propose further divisions of these particles... but the point is, even if there were, what's evident for us in our life experience is that this shouldn't concern us, because it doesn't influence our lives, or if it does we can't percieve it at all.

So, even if the vacuum is not infinite, even if matter is finite (which it could be and we could be just existing in the right place at the right time, as we now know this could be because statistically somebody had to, not because we're special beings) and it is about to be dissipated to the point of not being able to form compounds anymore, and even if we find out that probably black holes eject into our universe matter that wasn't here before, or they disappear matter into apparently "nothingness"... all of this doesn't change the fact that in our immediate experience, even though these observations (if they were observed) may contradict the theories put forth by the epicureans, it doesn't change our immediate reality and life experience as we can percieve it with the bodies we are, in the place we are now.

One of the key takeaways I got from reading DeWitt is that Epicirus was first and foremost an observer of nature, and thus, of our immediate experiences, so it's hard for me to accept that the physics, extended to the end of the universe, and to the infinitesimal size of atomic particles, are the whole foundation of the philosophy, as I understand has been proposed sometimes. Physics help us have a common context, most of us can agree with at some point in time, that's adequate to confirm what we experience in reality.

So my guess is that he, and they, ventured into giving an explanation of the whole universe, from the atomic to the astronomical level (I say this particularly because they were usinig mostly logic to do so, which they themselves said could not be trusted), not because they wanted to find ultimate and unchangeable truths, but because they wanted to give this common context, that helped most refute the possibility of us experiencing, in this reality we live in, in this Earth, the things that we, after observation can be sure that are impossible (like having external invisible forces influencing our lives and having things appearing or disappearing to and out of nowhere), and thus, carry on to more important things, like learning how to enjoy life.

One of the links on this thread: Sabine Hossenfelder - Why the Multiverse Is Religion

Took me to a website where Sabine H. wrote about why free will is inexistent. After the pleasant surprise we had with the other two videos Cassius I thought it may have been an error but I did find out this video later on:

It seems to me that this "paradox" (because, of course, we perceive free will with our senses, but she states we're being fooled) falls a bit into what was talked about in this episode.

I think she's taking the theory of what differential equations, math and physics _could_ describe and confounding it with what we actually experience.

It's a bit disappointing, after the talk we had about her other videos.

I hope Martin could give an opinion on this.

This part of my reply is less about paradoxes in general and more about the specific apparent "paradox" of free will.

I like Noam Chomsky's very pragmatic response to the question, which can be seen in this video:

Also, this:

"QUESTION: What about the problem of free will? If genes play a crucial role in structuring the mind’s abilities, is free will an illusion?

CHOMSKY: Well, that’s interesting. Here, I think, I would tend to agree with Descartes. Free will is simply an obvious aspect of human experience. I know — as much as I know that you’re in front of me right now — that I can take my watch and throw it out the window if I feel like it. I also know that I’m not going to do that, because I want the watch. But I could do it if I felt like it. I just know this.

Now, I don’t think there’s any scientific grasp, any hint of an idea, as to how to explain free will. Suppose somebody argues that free will is an illusion. Okay. This could be the case, but I don’t believe that it’s the case. It could be. You have to be open-minded about the possibility. But you’re going to need a very powerful argument to convince me that something as evident as free will is an illusion. Nobody’s offered such an argument or even pretended to offer such an argument.

So where does that leave us? We’re faced with an overwhelmingly self-evident phenomenon that could be an illusion even though there’s no reason to believe that it is an illusion. And we have a body of scientific knowledge that simply doesn’t appear to connect with the problem of free will in any way.

QUESTION: Do you think that science will ever solve the problem of free will?

CHOMSKY: Personally, I don’t think so. People have been trying to solve the problem of free will for thousands of years and they’ve made zero progress. They don’t even have bad ideas about how to answer the question. My hunch — and it’s no more than a guess — is that the answer to the riddle of free will lies in the domain of potential science that the human mind can never master because of the limitations of its genetic structure."

(From: https://chomsky.info/198311__/ )

There's also this video, still on the topic of free will:

By the way, at around 2:15 of it he describes something similar to the canon of truth but not exactly the same.

Yes, she has a very interesting channel in YouTube, I encourage you to see it. I'm pretty sure she'd enjoy learning about EP.

Exactly that comment about Plato made me think it would be welcome around here. And it got me to see another video of her about the multiverse, which also should fit around here somewhere, because she makes the association of such speculations (the multiverse) with religion. Here it is:

This can be clarifying of the concept that reason alone is not sufficient to know the truth, and I'm guessing you'll enjoy it:

I guess that someone studying Epicurean Philosophy would fairly quickly grasp the general idea of how the soul is thought of being and dissolving in this materialist context.

So, the Epicureans provide an answer to the questions of the soul, but don't say what it is (at least I think they don't), in a way of a redefinition of a previously superstitious and abstract concept, as they do with the gods (with the explanation of the natural evolution of humans into what they must be), into something related to nature.

For me, it's not that this particular topic is of the utmost relevance, since I think these were just explanations needed to be given by Epicureans to previously existing superstitious concepts in order for the philosophy, and its most relevant contribution of ethics, not to be disqualified as "incomplete". But Still, the problem of superstition is still a real one these days, and being able to provide a bridge to someone to get out of it depends on being able to talk about the things most relevant to them. And I think the soul is one of them, usually.

So, after eliminating what I think would be the previous or traditional conception of soul, a superstitious and abstract "spirit or essence", the only definition I could find (online) is that of the energy (a material thing) that causes the (biological) vigor (an observable and possibly measurable quality of strength of action) that all living things show in different ways.

Is there an "official" one of the philosophy?

Just getting into full-nerd-mode, because it's not significant but it's weird nonetheless: Strange that MFS would talk about this as something so obvious, dropped casually as a 1 line footnote without further references or information, and yet we're not being able to pin point what exactly is he talking about.

Thanks to both. Interesting answers. I agree that the poetry could have interpretations that are coherent with Epicurean Philosophy; so it's the more confusing to read MFS talking about an Epicurean deduction/description/observation of a "fiery envelope" as I don't believe the use of poetics was common neither in Epicurus nor in any other disciple except Lucretius, and it doesn't seem like a description of anything observable in the world that wouldn't have been described quite differently were this the case.

In the MFS version there is a footnote linked to the following text (1.71-73):

..."far beyond the blazing battlements of the world".

The footnote reads:

"The reference is to the _fiery envelope_ that, according to the Epicureans, surrounds the world"...

This is the first time I've come across this "fiery envelope belief". What is he talking about?

Quote from Cassius

I have the impression that the context of religious oppression can be so bad for some people that they focus exclusively on attacking religion and their current societal problems without paying much attention to what they would erect to replace it as a way to organize society. Seems to me that Epicurus didn't do that and was much wider in his scope of attention.

This confuses me a bit. Why would an Epicurean would think of trying to erect something to replace religion which is, almost by definition, aimed at the masses and with the greatest scope possible, hence making it analogous to “public” work, and something we should refrain of engaging in.

Could you please elaborate more on this comment of yours? Thanks.

In the Wikipedia page for Voltaire Epicurus appears listed as one of his influences.

I think we both saw the same elements of Epicureanism, Cassius; that emphasis on what you can and cannot control, I learned about first while I was studying stoicism. I understand now that Epicurus came before and thus could’ve been the proponent of this. Do we have any evidence of this in the extant documents ?

I would like to understand better, Cassius , what you mean by quietism and why do you regard it as such a bad thing. What I understand of it is not something that is at odds with seeking pleasure as the greatest good. Heck, even to “sit down, give up, tune out, give in", if it’s the only thing you can control, and after your calculations is what could give you the most amount of pleasure, I don’t see why we would judge people who decide to act these way. It’s analogue to the belief in legends bringing you peace of mind. I’m not on a fixed stance here, so I’d love to hear what you have to say about this.

What I do agree with you on straightforwardly is that De Botton is not the best; he is trying to gain adepts by being easily digestible. Thus, I don’t think his focus is on empowering to improve your thinking and ability to gain control over your experience, but rather to get you hooked to his “wisdom pills”, and for this, a message of “letting go” is very convenient.

The reason I think the story is the Turk is very Epicurean is precisely for the reasons you state. Tending the garden the way he has, with his family, providing food for their self sufficiency while engaging in commerce with Constantinople, and looking after their 10 acres doesn’t seem particularly quiet to me. This would require a lot of labor and care and a desire to not let go. The fact that he was able to sit and enjoy a quiet time underneath the orange tree for whatever pleasure he was getting from it is a fruit of all the previous labor.

And I know your critique is not directed at me, dear Cassius , but I appreciate you caring to clarify it. 😃

Just a video that, despite of mentioning a “stoic end” to the story that is the object of it, seems to me has some Epicurean Philosophy elements to it.

Straightforwardly, the title; but beyond that, the type of life “the Turk” leads, and his opinion of politics; I don’t think the video's author's conclusion is completely on the spot, but his interpretation of it as a suggestion for living a “simpler” life, more focused on what and where you could actually have a physical interaction with, rather than fall for the false opinion of being able to have a “big impact on the world”, I liked.

I don’t particularly endorse that YouTube channel but it has some good “primers” on many philosophers; I saw its take on Epicurus a while ago, but I don’t recall it being particularly enlightening or away from the common places we’re likely to run into more often than not.

Good night. 😃

Quote from Don

Something doesn't feel right to me with that phrase "the value of truth" is "relative." I agree with Cassius that Epicurus would be comfortable saying there is no absolute capital-T Truth. No Platonic ideal of Truth. But I don't think you can really talk about the "value of truth" being relative or absolute. I'm not even sure what the "value of truth" means. There are things that are true and things that are false. And as Lucretius says, if it seems false, arm yourself against it.

Yes, my initial approach may have not been clear enough. That's why I later made reference to the value of our attitude towards promoting that truth. Which, as it's already been said, is high or low depending on its ability to be pleasurable or not.

Quote from Don

Plus, check out the characteristics of the Epicurean sage in that they will make speeches if requested and other situations. Epicureans will not be the street-corner preacher handing out pamphlets and carrying a sign. We will share our Philosophy both individually and in groups of interested or receptive people, but we don't require people to listen to us. We're practical, prudent, just, and can take advantage of situations that arise to share what we know to be true, not false.

Great pont and I will check that out, thanks.

Quote from Don

The "natural Philosophers" are those opposed to Epicurus in this instance. He actually wrote a book against them: A Summary of Arguments Against the Physicists/Natural Philosophers. The same word is used for them in both the list of Epicurus's books and in DL X.134: physikōs. In this case, these are the philosophers advocating for Fate.

This is what I had gathered from the post. So the naturalists are the Democritean determinists? Epicurus may have based his philosophy in the observation of nature, but he is not considered a naturalist, right?

Quote from Cassius

As far as the second sentence goes it would probably be better to ask you to restate that to make it more clear.

What I meant is that truth is not valuable in itself, it just is ; but our decision to honor (that is, recognizing its importance, and think of it highly and respecting it highly, thus, perhaps, trying to communicate it regardless of circumstances) the truth of something could be less or more valuable to us depending on the situation, and using the criteria of pleasure. In the hypothetical scenario of this post, honoring it is of little value; but in other situations, some of them already stated in this thread, this value is higher.

Quote from Cassius

In your example, rather than "truth," I would say that what you are talking about is "information" -- in this case information about the state of a disease and/or the state (if any) after death).

Yes. It could be a truth I accept and decide to believe, but not necessarily others'. Hence, depending on our worldviews, we could both hold our truths and these could be conflicting.

Quote from Cassius

Certainly the information that the soul is mortal and does not live forever in the happy fields of an eternal hereafter is not "pleasurable" information to hear.

I think it is a function of time, as in if you learn this early on, you could be excused of much mental pain, but if you learn it late in life it could be shocking and painful.

Quote

that yoke of destiny (Fate) which the natural philosophers have imposed.

What is that yoke of destiny? I presume determinism.

Who are the natural philosophers? From DeWit I gathered (please clarify if I'm mistaken that Epicurus could be classified as a natural philospher since part of his philosophy was based on observations of nature as the norm.

Quote

nor to be a cause, though an uncertain one, for he believes that no good or evil is dispensed by chance to men so as to make life blessed, though it supplies the starting-point of great good and great evil.

A cause of good or evil? Or a cause of what?

Quote

He believes that the misfortune of the wise is better than the prosperity of the fool. [135] It is better, in short, that what is well judged in action should not owe its successful issue to the aid of chance.

Who is he?

What could be that which is well-judged-in-action?

Quote from Don

If the dying one is in reality not troubled, why do you want to achieve the desire to evangelize?

Indeed, it becomes obvious that if the person is trouble bye the false opinions, our truth has the potential to set them free. But if they're happy with their truth, there's no gain for either to talk about it.

Quote from Don

I don't see this as a question of the relative value of truth. I see this as a scenario in which prudence needs to be exercised for the most pleasurable outcome overall.

I understand... but the question still remains, and indeed it does look like the vallue of truth is relative, which may be something that makes us uncomfortable but it might none the less be true. Perhaps, the question should not be if the value of truth is relative, but rather if the value of us honoring our truth is relative, which it seems to be the case.

Hello,

Imagine that a person is about to die of natural causes and is aware of it. They are not experiencing any physical pain and the thing that is giving them peace of mind is the belief that their immaterial soul will be reunited with its supernatural creator; probably also that they’ll go to heaven because they’ve “been good”.

You make them aware that the soul is material and that no thing that is immaterial exists, that good depends on your take of what is pleasurable or not, but you realize that rather than bringing them more pleasure to these final moments you produce them more mental pain.

A false opinion that brings pleasure rather than turmoil.

Being truthful for the sake of it at a moment like this seems stupid and not likely to produce any pleasure to either party.

Is the value of truth relative?

Also this:

"In a home I need walls, roof, windows, and a door that can be opened and closed. I also need a place to cook, a place to eat, a place to sleep, a place for a guest, and a place to write. More space is not better. More space means a bigger house. A bigger house means more hassle, more maintenance, more work to pay for rent, mortgage, taxes, and less time for living. More space also attracts more stuff which eventually means less space. The amount of actual space in a room depends more on personal tolerance for clutter than anything else. Some things make life easier, but more things do not make life more easy. More things mean more things that can break down and more time spent fixing or replacing them. Comfort is freedom and independence. Comfort is having the sweat glands and metabolic tolerance to deal with heat and cold. It is not central heating or air conditioning which may fail or be unavailable. It is not plushy seats but a healthy back. Luxury is not expensive things. It is a healthy and capable body that moves with ease with no restraints because something is too heavy, too far, too hard, or too much. It is a content and capable mind that can think critically, solve problems, and form opinions of its own.

Success is having everything you need and doing everything you want. It is not doing everything you need to have everything you want. If so then you do not own your things, instead your things own you. I do not need to own a particular kind of vehicle. I need to go from A to B. I do not need fancy steak dinners, rare ingredients, or someone else to prepare my meals whether it is a pizza parlor, a chef, or an industrial food preprocessor. I need food to live. Food to fuel my body and brain. Luxury is not eating at 5 five star restaurants. Luxury is being able to appreciate any food. Comfort is eating the right kind and the right amount of food. Not whatever I want. Eating and moving right prevents diseases, pains, and lack of functionality. I am what I eat and I look what I do. Everybody is. It is the physiological equivalent of integrity. To say what I mean and mean what I say. This too makes life more comfortable. Money is opportunity. Opportunity is power. Power is freedom. And freedom means responsibility. Without responsibility, eventually there is no freedom, no power, no opportunities, and no money. More importantly, freedom is more than power. Power is more than opportunity. Opportunity is more than money. And money is more than something that just buys stuff. It is simple to understand but hard to remember, but do remember this if nothing else.

Ipse dixit!"

(http://earlyretirementextreme.com/manifesto.html)

I came upon this text, titled as "philosophy", that describes the thinking behind a brand of the Early Retirement segment of the internet; it is called Extreme Early Retirement (ERE):

"ERE uses a web approach to lifestyle design in order to integrate personal finance and lifestyle in an efficient manner for individuals. If a lifestyle is seen as a collection of choices (where to live, how to work, how to get to work, what to eat, ...), the focus of ERE is on the connection between the choices rather than on the choices themselves. ERE is therefore not a collection of specific tips, tricks, or choices but a way of viewing the structure of the choices and how they fit together in the most optimal way. The purpose of ERE is to design a structure (a set of connections) that minimizes waste and maximizes the synergy between specific choices to increase efficiency and opportunity.

The unifying principle of ERE is a systems thinking approach to lifestyle design referred to as a Web of Goals, where negative side-effects are eliminated as far as possible and goals are chosen to have mutually reinforcing positive side effects. If a goal is seen as a primary objective, side-effects may be seen as secondary objectives. However, when secondary objectives are mutually reinforced they may be more easily achieved and even turn into primary objectives (a change of strategy) should the original primary objective fail or simply fail to inspire.

The Web of Goals can be seen as an evolving life-story that automatically minimizes waste (any kind of negative side-effect) and allows for the maximum possible number of opportunities in a rich world, or maximum resilience in a poor world. Over time this can lead to a complex arrangement of highly efficient choices that produce a given standard-of-living for much less than the normal cost or a higher standard-of-living at the same cost.

Compared to consumerism, where choices are ordered one-dimensionally on a price scale and prioritized according to affordability sacrificing one good for another, ERE is a brain-intensive replacement for consumerism with an S-shaped learning curve. ERE adds additional means of acquiring or building goods without having to purchase them, which increases flexibility and resilience.

One analogy is comparing monocropping agriculture with permaculture. Monocropping aims to increase the yield of a single crop by increasing the inputs of fertilizer and pesticides. In permaculture, higher yields are achieved through the synergy of many different kinds of inputs. Comparing standard-of-living between ERE and consumerism based on cost-of-living would be similar to comparing the yields of monocropping and permaculture based on the amount of fertilizer and pesticide used.

High yields in ERE are achieved by integrating additional inputs from many different fields resulting in greater personal competence. To increase efficiency ERE frequently borrows techniques from simple living, minimalism, frugality, DIY ethics, survivalism, car-free living, and others."

It seems to me there is an element of Epicurean Philosophy subtly woven in this "philosophy", although I'm still not able to pin-point it. I though it could be illustrative to talk about it, and hear what your points of view are towards this topic of "early retirement". From what I gather so far, it is sort of what Epicurus did, finding a way to fund his self-sufficiency in order to be more independent to develop his philosophy and "work" on something he evidently enjoyed. It all just seems rather far-fetched nowadays, but I guess for some people it is possible.

(https://wiki.earlyretirementextreme.com/wiki/What_is_ERE%3F#Philosophy)

Thanks a lot for following up Don - I enjoyed the straying so thanks to all of you guys for what you shared. Please don’t think the simplicity of this answer implies a lack of appreciation for all the very valuable replies you guys posted; it’s just that I’ve been lacking time to read thoroughly all of them, but I will try and reply if I can.

Regarding my original post, the winner was this:

“We are very thankful

We are very glad

For friends we meet

And food we eat

For home and mom and dad.”

Winner because my wife and kid loved it, and we prayed it together and no supernatural beings took part .

I made my own translation to Spanish:

“Nos sentimos muy agradecidos

Y con razones para contentos estar

Por los amigos que conocimos

Y las comidas que compartimos

Por mamá, papá y nuestro hogar.”

Ojalá les guste.

See you around.