Posts by Bryan

Quote from Don

Do we know how far back Apiqoros goes in Hebrew? To the time of the Maccabees?

Best I can tell, the word has been around since Epicurus. Yet, it looks like we first have the term attested in text just a generation after the invasion of the Maccabees. The word is used in "the early Tannaitic sources (first century before Hillel)" where it is used "to refer to one who espouses Epicurean philosophy."

There is a tradition of denying that the term comes from Epicurus, while nevertheless understanding that is really does come from him. Happily the handbook even mentions this open deception "It is also worth bearing in mind that the Talmudic etymology of the term may itself be a self-consciously homiletic effort rather than a serious philological one" (pg 567). Meaning the argument that it is unrelated is not even believed by those who make the argument.

Also, the argument that the word means "heretic" in a general sense may also be disingenuous -- at least originally it specifically means "Epicurean."

(Avot 2.14) "know what to respond to an Epikoros"

(Sanhedrin 10.1) "These are they who have no place in the world to come: He who says there is no resurrection of the dead, that there is no Torah from Heaven, an Epikoros"

The advice to, (if legally possible) publicly kill Epicureans (but if not legally possible) to kill them by deception is hardly a unique treatment for those who disagree -- although the bit about leaving us to die in wells by "temporarily borrowing" our ladder (if the opportunity should arise) is a unique little twist!

Quote from Cassius

Just remember that the Hebrew word for 'heretic' is 'אפיקורוס' or 'Epikoros'.

I was reading The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism (2020) and came to page 549, where it says “The Term Epicurus, or Apiqoros as it is more often pronounced, is alive and well in contemporary Jewish culture.”

It goes on to state “Epicurus is a unique figure in Judaism – a Greek philosopher whose name has become a legal category. An Apiqoros cannot give testimony in court (Mishnah Torah 11.11), one may not return a lost object to Apiqorsim (11.3), one is even obligated to kill them” (page 551)

Here is the quote form the Torah:

(Mishneh Torah, Rotzeah uShmirat Nefesh, 4.10) It is a blessing to kill minim and Epikursim… Epikursim deny the Torah and the concept of prophecy. If there is the possibility, one should kill them with a sword in public view. If that is not possible, one should develop a plan so that one can cause their deaths. What is implied? If one sees such a person descend to a cistern, and there is a ladder in the cistern, one should take the ladder, and excuse oneself, saying: "I must hurry to take my son down from the roof. I shall return the ladder to you soon." Similarly, one should devise other analogous plans to cause the death of such people.

Different translation: "The [following are considered] Ha’Epikorsim (הָאֶפִּיקוֹרְסִים): those who worship idols or commit transgressions in order to provoke anger. Even if one eats non-kosher meat or wears garments of mixed fabric to provoke anger, he is considered an Epikoros (אֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס). This includes those who deny the Torah and the Prophets. It is a commandment to kill them. If one has the power to kill them with a sword in public, he should do so. If not, he should employ subterfuge to cause their death. How so? If one of them falls into a pit and a ladder is inside, he should remove it and say, 'I must go and bring my son down from the roof; I will return the ladder to you,' and similarly in such matters."

When he shows the equation that “explains everything” yet nevertheless states that there are “parts of which no one on the planet understands,” I think he is playing the game Diogenes of Oinoanda mentions below:

“[Others do not] explicitly [stigmatize] natural science [as unnecessary], being ashamed to acknowledge [this], but use another means of discarding it. For, when they assert that things are inapprehensible, what else are they saying than that there is no need for us to pursue natural science? After all, who will choose to seek what he can never find? Now Aristotle and those who hold the same Peripatetic views as Aristotle say that nothing is scientifically knowable, because things are continually in flux and, on account of the rapidity of the flux, evade our apprehension. We on the other hand acknowledge their flux, but not its being so rapid that the nature of each thing is at no time apprehensible by sense-perception.” (Diogenes of Oinoanda, Fr. 5, trans. Smith)

“…if [the Stoics] call [thoughts] empty on the ground that, while they have a corporeal nature, it is exceedingly subtle and does not impinge on the senses, they have expressed themselves wrongly, [since it was necessary to call] them corporeal, despite their subtlety. If on the other hand they call them empty on the ground that they have no corporeal nature at all – and it is in fact this rather than the former which they mean – how can the empty be represented? What then are they?... for films which are so subtle and lack the depth of a solid constitution cannot possibly possess these faculties.” (Fr. 10)

I feel that the explanation the presenter repeats -- basically the endorsed explanation since the world wars -- simply takes pre-suppositions from other schools, which are contrary to our school, and then labors to argue that recent experiments and technological advances prove their pre-suppositions correct.

(Regarding post #13)

In minute 15 he says that the field operates while being "never touched" and "without ever touching," and says "the field is real... you can affect things far away using the field without ever touching it."

How can something be affected without contact?

In minute 20 "There are no particles in the world, the basic fundamental building blocks of our universe are these fluid-like substances that we call fields"

What is a "substance that is not made of any particles"?

In minute 22 he tells us to imagine a total empty space, and then shows us an animation of all the "fields" that operate within a total empty space, "even when the particles are taken out, the field still exists"

How can total empty space fluctuate? What is moving?

The presenter says (agreeing with Empedocles and the Talmud) that the world is made of 4 elements and in locations where he cannot find any of these four elements (but nevertheless finds movement), he accepts the conclusion that the void itself can move and be affected! We are thus presented with the idea of immaterial force fields! With the smoke of obfuscation provided by equations which he says “parts of which no one on the planet understands,” his magic show turns into a comedy act!

I appreciate his honest comments regarding the LHC’s failures to lend much support for the standard model “all of these fantastic, beautiful ideas that we’ve had, none of them are showing up at all… my impression is that most of my community is a little bit shell-shocked by by what happened, there is certainly no consensus in the community to move forward.” (minute 55)

He may have meant to say “there is no consensus in the community [where] to move forward” but what he did say was closer to the truth. They will keep asserting their beliefs and will keep looking for any evidence that could possibly be interpreted to confirm them.

True atoms are smaller than our machines have been able to see or measure, we can only detect their effects -- this does not mean there is nothing there! Empty space does not move and can not be affected in any way.

Thank you, Cyrano. I truly think this is a work of brilliance and courage. I fully agree with you. Bravo!

We must reject the absurdities of matter coming in and out of existence, an origin of the universe, or any influence on empty space.

"The overview is often needed but the details we only need occasionally" - and this is an excellent overview!

When I see such good productions as this, I think of page 1 of the 830 page Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism which says “...contemporary philosophers continue to churn out article after article of increasing sophistication defending or (mostly) attempting to refute Epicurus’s arguments about the harmlessness of death. […] I imagine many professional scholars may sometimes feel that their contributions somehow lack the immediate visceral appeal of those flashier productions of true believers touting Epicureanism as a cure for everything […] it is doubtful that many of the scholars in this volume write as believers…”

Today I came across a related quote from Hermarchus about our pre-rational sense of justice. The topic is legislation prohibiting murder:

"...some people have come to the consideration of the utility, previously perceiving it irrationally and often forgetting, but others were terrified by the magnitude of the punishments."

καὶ τοὺς μὲν εἰς ἐπιλογισμὸν τοῦ χρησίμου καταστήσαντες, ἀλόγως αὐτοῦ πρότερον αἰσθανομένους καὶ πολλάκις ἐπιλανθανομένους, τοὺς δὲ τῷ μεγέθει τῶν ἐπιτιμίων καταπλήξαντες. (Porphyry, De Abstinentia 1.8)

ἀλόγως αὐτοῦ πρότερον αἰσθανομένους = Sensing it without reason in advance, Having a pre-rational perception of it beforehand.

I'm passionate about physics, from Epicurus up to classical mechanics. However, I'm critical of the dominant interpretations in modern physics, which I believe are cynically promoted. This sentiment echoes my views on art: while I admire classical art, I find myself disenchanted with much of what is promoted as art today. To me, both modern physics and modern art seem to primarily exist to mock their classical predecessors. I reject that there is a scientific basis of some modern physics concepts, such as particles popping in and out of existence, the origin of the universe, or influence upon empty space, these are aligned with religious beliefs from the Talmud not with natural science. Their math is a self-referencing game and their experiments could more easily be interpreted. I seek a scientific understanding based upon empirical evidence -- Epicurus offers a tangible basis, unlike the promoted contemporary theories. I believe that a true understanding of physics supports a fulfilling life, but what is often presented as "physics" today appears to be more influenced by religious doctrine than scientific inquiry. This is sad and makes a mockery of many smart people who did not want to think religiously but were nevertheless corralled in that direction.

Einstein's theories will eventually be fully recognized as just a fashion of the elites, while the contributions of Epicurus will continue to endure.

Quote from BrainToBeing

However, if the tower is never visible....

Similarly, a small percentage of people argue that 'justice' is non-existent, often because they expect to observe some ethereal, immutable concept they can label as 'justice.' Their search for a transcendent, all-encompassing form of justice is futile, as it simply does not exist. In seeking such an unrealistic ideal, they inadvertently set an impossible standard for what justice should be, leading them to erroneously conclude that justice itself is a fallacy. However, most people reject the notion that justice does not exist, because they have a reflexive image of justice in their minds.

Nevertheless, the ability to recognize justice is contingent on our willingness to look for it. Also, if we seek a form of justice that exists without reference to specific physical interactions, we are doomed to never find it. Justice, in reality, must be grounded in specific, physical contexts.

Thank you for the conversation.

Quote from Don

Which comes first? Did the "image" arise in the mind after you "think" of something, or did you think of something and then the image arises in the mind?

I should not have said 'think' but maintained the use of 'focus.' Thank you for the correction! It seems that this is the very reason Epicurus used 'focus' (ἡ ἐπιβολή) instead of a word for thinking (ὁ λογισμός, ὁ λόγος, ἡ νόησις, ἡ γνῶσις, ἡ δόξα, etc).

Epicurus was pointing to the pre-rational image that strikes us. If we choose to 'think' of something, we must first mentally 'focus' on it.

Quote from BrainToBeing

"God the Father" However, what if all of it is a form of prolepsis.

People have a natural mental image of the gods, but this natural sense can be quickly obfuscated by culture/opinion. Epicurus lived in a world where depictions of gods were as common as seeing a statue of Mickey Mouse at Disneyland. The gods in ancient Greece were extremely reified by the culture.

We now have the opposite problem. We come from many generations of people who suffered under the idea (from Judaism, and present in Protestantism) that god cannot be pictured and should not be imagined.

If images of friendship and thinking about 'the characteristics of friendship' were considered for thousands years to be a serious mental transgression, we would eventually expect some people to come to the conclusion that friendship is not real.

Just because, from one viewpoint, some clouds are obfuscating a distant tower does not mean the tower does not exist.

A pencil is worthy to be called a pencil if its fundamental characteristics (συμβεβηκότα) are of a pencil. Just like 'justice,' we cannot deny the existence of the word or category of 'god' so then we must take that label, look around the universe, and put the label on something that exists and is worthy of the label.

Yes a mental image of a pencil is a prolepsis. You will not have a prolepsis of a pencil unless you have had some contact with it (even if it is just a description or a simple drawing), but the clarity increases with increased exposure. I think we can wave away Cicero's description as "innate or inborn 'thoughts'" insitae vel potius inatae 'cogitiones'. Even the Latin could mean that the 'thoughts' were "implanted in or grew up" with the mind (as Bailey points out).

Just as 'epibole' (ἡ ἐπιβολή) is 'focus,' the meaning of 'prolepsis' (ἡ πρόληψις) is simply 'a mental image.' It is the image that comes to mind when you think of something. Similar to external objects, the level of detail depends on your focus and the extent of your exposure / repeated viewings.

Quote from Cassius

You have a couple of versions of each sentence joined with a sort of "nodictionaries.com" word by word definition?

Quote from Don

Some of the grammar and definitions are basic

I want to give a very hearty thanks to you both, Don and Cassius, for your attention and comments. I am about to start giving this project more attention, and rewriting the GPT errors. I wanted to share this prototype with the group - any further comments and critiques will be appreciated and will likely help the process. Thank you.

OneDrive

Adding some of the sources for the Mithres event:

"When Metrodorus went down to the Peiraeus, a distance of some forty stades, to help one Mithres, a Syrian, a royal officer who had been arrested, letters went out to everyone, men and women alike, with Epicurus' solemn glorification of that journey." (Plutarch, Reply to Colotes, 1126E)

"...the letters [Epicurus] sent to his friends as he extolled and magnified Metrodorus, telling how nobly and manfully he went from town to the coast to help Mithres the Syrian, and this although Metrodorus accomplished nothing on that occasion." (Plutarch, A pleasant life is impossible 1097B)

Quote from Martin

I guess it is that counter-interintuitive loss which is disturbing with the theories of relativity. I felt this disturbance, too.

Thank you Martin, yes that gets to the heart of my objection.

Allow me to press a little farther: I wonder if the calculations for relativity fit together because they are self-referential and constructed with their own set of rules.

For example: it is my understanding that the speed of light has not been measured -- even if we grant that round-trips have been calculated -- the idea that light moves at a consistent speed is only a convention, is this correct?

Yet the assumption of this constancy of the speed of light is at the basis of his subsequent propositions.

Quote from Martin

Epicureans need to accept that the void can be filled with force fields.

Hello Martin,

Thank you for responding. Filling the void is easy to accept, but it is not easy to accept that the void is affected in any way, which (as far as I understand it) is ultimately part of his argument.

Can we interpret Einstein in way that leaves the void untouched and unaffected, but only the host of forces/matter?

Thank you for the conversation!

It seems to me that the data contained in sight is pre-rational and automatic whether (1) we are purposefully focusing our eyes on something, (2) we just happen to see that thing, or (3) that thing grabs our attention.

If we choose to look at a dog, the data we see about the dog will still be pre-rational upon reception. We will then immediately (but nevertheless subsequently) start thinking about this data.

Similarly our anticipations are honest witnesses that report directly the data contained in the perpetuated disturbances that strike and stimulate the mind. Just like sight, anticipations/stereotypes are pre-rational and automatic whether (1) we focus on them, (2) we observe them as they come and go, or (3) they grab our attention.

Examples:

(1) We choose to think of a dog, the general stereotype (our anticipation) of a dog automatically strikes our mind -- and from this pre-rational basis -- we can then immediately begin to manipulate the idea/image of a dog.

(2) We let the images come and go without thought or analysis -- most often when we are very relaxed or sleeping.

(3) We see a dog-like thing, the general stereotype (our anticipation) of a dog automatically strikes our mind -- we can then immediately (but nevertheless subsequently) begin to think "this is a dog," "this is a dog-like animal," or "this is actually just a statue of a dog."

(excuse my slight swerve from the topic)

This is fun:

Quote from Relativity: The Special and General Theory, 1916, Translated: Robert W. Lawson

The purpose of mechanics is to describe how bodies change their position in space with "time." I should load my conscience with grave sins against the sacred spirit of lucidity were I to formulate the aims of mechanics in this way, without serious reflection and detailed explanations. Let us proceed to disclose these sins.

It is not clear what is to be understood here by "position" and "space." I stand at the

window of a railway carriage which is travelling uniformly, and drop a stone on the

embankment, without throwing it. Then, disregarding the influence of the air resistance, I see the stone descend in a straight line. A pedestrian who observes the misdeed from the footpath notices that the stone falls to earth in a parabolic curve. I now ask: Do the "positions" traversed by the stone lie "in reality" on a straight line or on a parabola?

Moreover, what is meant here by motion "in space" ? From the considerations of the

previous section the answer is self-evident. In the first place we entirely shun the vague word "space," of which, we must honestly acknowledge, we cannot form the slightest conception, and we replace it by "motion relative to a practically rigid body of reference."

The positions relative to the body of reference (railway carriage or embankment) have

already been defined in detail in the preceding section. If instead of " body of reference" we insert "system of co-ordinates," which is a useful idea for mathematical description, we are in a position to say : The stone traverses a straight line relative to a system of coordinates rigidly attached to the carriage, but relative to a system of co-ordinates rigidly attached to the ground (embankment) it describes a parabola. With the aid of this example it is clearly seen that there is no such thing as an independently existing trajectory, but only a trajectory relative to a particular body of reference.

Display More

When it is put so simply, it is easy to simply disagree with it.

Ultimately, Einstein throws away the void, and his "vacuum" is affected by gravity.

Thanks for sharing!

Yes (expanding on what I said in KD24) instead of using the modern analogy of ‘focusing’ the mind (as though the mind were something like a camera), Epicureans used the analogy of ‘throwing’ or ‘casting’ the mind (as though the mind were something like a net). The paraphrases animī iniectus ("throwing the mind") and ἡ επιβολή τῆς διανοίας ("casting the mind upon") therefore are equivalent to our modern use of ‘attention' or 'focus' in the broad sense. Everything from trying to hear a particular sound out of many to focusing on our automatic mental images/stereotypes.

As Lucretius says, often things in the room with us are totally out of our thoughts, so much so they may as well be miles away—until we focus on them. He says the same of our mental images. Many people are very busy and ignore all but the most pressing impressions that cannot be ignored for life to continue (stereotypes of dangerous things, for example).

There is also the idea (cynically promoted by those who prefer that they -- not you -- are in control of your thoughts) that if a stereotype is wrong even once it is invalid. But abandoning this natural mechanism would make us defenseless in body and enfeebled in the mind. In reality nobody can actually live for very long without using them.

If some people tell you to stop relying on your senses as the basis of your thinking, you must stop trusting those people.