Posts by Kalosyni

Quote from Cassius

At any rate, it's important to be clear that the senses are not right or wrong themselves, it is the interpretations we draw from the senses that can be right or wrong.

This gave me some difficulty in the past, so I want to see if I can finally get it. Can we say that the senses are the mechanics of how the mind collects "data"? Then just like a microscope may have a scratch on the lense, the eye could have a defect which slightly alters the incoming data? It would take some further effort to determine that there was a distortion in the data, by running further experiments or comparing what others are observing - and the data wouldn't be 100 percent incorrect, only skewed. This would be dealing with "correct vs. incorrect".

But then there is a different judgement of the morality of something when the words used are "right vs. wrong". So for example a video recorder can record information, but it takes human judgement to both interpret and say if something was "right or wrong".

Not sure how much it matters to say "correct vs. incorrect" compared to "right vs. wrong" for everyone else, but it seems to helps me. Another wording could be "accurate vs. inaccurate".

Which then we could ask: Do the senses always report accurately? (I am still not getting this ).

Wishing you a Happy Birthday Bryan

Quote from Kalosyni

If it looks like the place that I moved it isn't quite right, please let me know, by private message, what you think might be a better location.

And, with regard to a particular thread, if you think we need to add a sub-forum section as a better location, please let me know.

Hi Everyone, I am going to be doing (a little at a time) some filing of older threads located in the "General Discussion" section into their respective category based on their title.

If you are the orginator of a particular thread, then the forum should give you a message that your thread has been moved. If it looks like the place that I moved it isn't quite right, please let me know, by private message, what you think might be a better location. Thanks!

I just found this interesting excerpt, on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website, "Ancient Theories of Soul" - Section on Epicurus:

Quote

5.1 Epicurus’ Theory of Soul

Epicurus is an atomist, and in accordance with his atomism he takes the soul, like everything else that there is except for the void, to be ultimately composed of atoms. Our sources are somewhat unclear as to exactly which kinds of materials he took to be involved in the composition of soul. It is very probable, though, that in addition to some relatively familiar materials — such as fire-like and wind-like stuffs, or rather the atoms making up such stuffs — the soul, on Epicurus’ view, also includes, in fact as a key ingredient, atoms of a nameless kind of substance, which is responsible for sense-perception. Thus it seems that while he thought he could explain phenomena such as the heat or warmth of a living organism, as well as its movement and rest, by appealing to relatively familiar materials and their relatively familiar properties, he did feel the need to introduce a mysterious additional kind of substance so as to be able to explain sense-perception, apparently on the grounds that “sense-perception is found in none of the named elements” (L&S 14C). It is worth noting that it is specifically with regard to sense-perception that Epicurus thinks the introduction of a further, nameless kind of substance is called for, rather than, for instance, with regard to intellectual cognition. What this suggests, and what in fact we have independent reason to think, is that on Epicurus’ view, once one is in a position adequately to explain sense-perception, one will then also be in a position to work out an explanation of intellectual cognition, by appropriately extending the explanation of sense-perception. Let us consider briefly how such extension might work.

Perceptual beliefs, like the belief that ‘there is a horse over there’, will be explained, in Epicurus’ theory, in terms of sense-impressions and the application of concepts (‘preconceptions’; for discussion cf. Asmis 1999, 276–83), and concept-formation is in turn explained in terms of sense-impression and memory. According to Diogenes Laertius’ summary (L&S 17E1–2), the Epicureans say that

Quote

preconception is, as it were, cognition or correct belief or conception or universal ‘stored notion’ (i.e. memory), of that which has frequently become evident externally: e.g. ‘such-and-such a kind of thing is a man’. For as soon as the word ‘man’ is uttered, immediately its impression also comes to mind by means of preconception, as a result of antecedent sense-perceptions.

Moreover, sense-impressions, interpreted and articulated in terms of concepts or preconceptions, yield experience concerning evident matters, which in turn forms the basis for conclusions about non-evident matters. For example, extensive experience can make clear to one not only that the human beings one has interacted with have a certain feature (say, rationality), but also (later Epicureans will say, probably somewhat developing Epicurus’ position) that it is inconceivable that any human being could fail to have that feature (cf. L&S 18F4–5). And so, experience will not only make one expect, with a very great deal of confidence, that any human being one will ever encounter anywhere will be rational. Experience also, according to the Epicureans, supports the inference to, and hence justifies one in accepting, the (non-evident) conclusion that all human beings, everywhere and at all times, are rational (for detailed discussion, cf. Allen 2001, 194–241). This obviously is an extremely generous view of what experience, and ultimately sense-perception, can do! Once we recognize the enormously powerful and fundamental role Epicurus and his followers assign to sense-perception, we will not be surprised to see that they feel the need to include in the composition of the soul a very special kind of material that accounts specifically for sense-perception, but apparently do not think that, in addition to that, some further special material is needed to enable intellectual or rational activity.

In the Epicurean tradition the word ‘soul’ is sometimes used in the broad traditional way, as what animates living things (e.g., Diogenes of Oenoanda, fr. 37 Smith), but the focus of interest, so far as the soul is concerned, is very much on the mental functions of cognition, emotion and desire. A view that is common in the tradition and that very probably goes back to the founder is that the soul is a composite of two parts, one rational, the other nonrational. The rational part, which Lucretius calls mind [animus], is the origin of emotion and impulse, and it is also where (no doubt among other operations) concepts are applied and beliefs formed, and where evidence is assessed and inferences are made. The nonrational part of the soul, which in Lucretius is somewhat confusingly called soul [anima], is responsible for receiving sense-impressions, all of which are true according to Epicurus. Error arises at a later stage, when sense-impressions are interpreted by the rational part of the soul, in a way that, as we have seen, crucially involves memory. Sense-perception, conceived of simply as the reception of sense-impressions by the nonrational soul, does not involve memory (cf. L&S 16B1). Since the formation and application of concepts requires memory, sense-perception, so conceived of, does not involve conceptualization, either. The nonrational part is also responsible for transmitting impulses originating from the rational part, as well as (presumably) for a wide variety of other vital functions. (When Epicurus distinguishes between pleasures and pains of the soul and those of the body, incidentally, the distinction he has in mind must be between the rational part of the soul on the one hand and the body animated by nonrational soul, on the other.)

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/#5.1

Welcome to the forum @AcuDoc213 

Quote from AcuDoc213

I wonder if anyone else follows or comes from a Secular Buddhist background, too.

Was Zen Buddhist for a time. Only briefly read about secular Buddhism.

For me, my mental framing of pleasure has shifted greatly since studying Epicurean philosophy, to a more relaxed and accepting attitude. Also, a shift in my mental framing of death. So Epicurean philosophy has a more expansive take on both pleasure and death, compared to Buddhism, in my opinion. I suppose that having gone through Buddhism and then coming to Epicureanism, means that I had already spent some time thinking about desire and death. (I'll see if I can re-read that compare and contrast thread referenced above, as not remembering what was covered in that thread).

Here is a fun article which recommends "quality over quantity":

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psymon…really-have-sex?

And here is one on voluntary celibacy:

Is Voluntary Celibacy on the Rise?

How common is it for people to take a break from sex and dating? Why do so many people today seem to be doing it? And are they happy with their decision to…

www.psychologytoday.com

I personally would use the phrase "natural but unnecessary" (rather than "extravagant pleasure") and what falls into that category depends on the given situation - and every situation is unique depending on the circumstances - so I wouldn't assign sex as being "natural and unnecessary" all across the board. I would label something as unnecessary if only if it causes (or results in) pain or disturbance, or it is very difficult to aquire -- and this would reflect an Epicurean method of "choice and avoidance".

I just found this article (interview) and it mentions that he wrote an essay.

A word of caution, at the start of this he goes with an "either/or" dichotomy - saying Epicurus taught that the wise refrained from engaging in "lust and debauchery" and instead "leaned towards a rather radical form of asceticism". (The Ethics forum has sections which deal with this issue, will try to post a link to a more specific section soon).

But the article has some interesting ideas regarding history of Epicureanism.

Quote

Heretic and a slave to desire or radical ascetic and paragon of virtue: who was the real Epicurus? Retracing the history of representations of Epicureanism, the CNRS philosopher Aurélien Robert shows that the Middle Ages played an important role in rehabilitating a Greek philosopher who had been deprecated and caricatured since antiquity.

Quote

That said, your essay shows that the rehabilitation of Epicurus dates from the Middle Ages, and not from the Renaissance, contrary to a still widely held belief…
A.R.: Indeed. For nearly 100 years it has been endlessly repeated that the chance rediscovery in the early 15th century, by an Italian humanist named Poggio Bracciolini, of De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things), a text by Lucretius from the first century BC containing an overview of Epicurean philosophy, enabled the return to grace of the Greek hedonist on the philosophical scene. This thesis is a myth. As paradoxical as it may seem, it was the Middle Ages that brought Epicurus out of the underworld, which quite simply went unnoticed until now due to the focus on texts (sermons, theological treatises, poems, etc.) that stigmatised Epicureans.

A close look at the medieval documentation on Epicureanism in all its facets shows that, starting in the 12th century, philosophers like Pierre Abélard, his follower John Salisbury or the learned Englishman William of Malmesbury, praised the excellence of Epicurus’ ideas, especially in the realm of ethics. In addition, the early 13th century saw the proliferation of collections of ‘Lives of the Philosophers’, some of which presented him as a model of morality, including for Christians. In my work I show that the clerics of the Middle Ages contradicted thaemselves. Although perfectly aware of the substance of Epicurus’ philosophy, they discussed it only within their own elite circles, while deliberately propagating a false image of Epicureans to the public, as a simple but effective fear tactic.

The Middle Ages brought Epicurus out of the underworld

Heretic and a slave to desire or radical ascetic and paragon of virtue: who was the real Epicurus? Retracing the history of representations of Epicureanism,…

news.cnrs.fr

Welcome to the forum Patrikios

Welcome to the forum Eric !

Article: Observational study supports century-old theory that challenges the Big Bang

Quote

Shamir's findings lend support to the century-old "tired light" theory instead of the Big Bang. The findings are published in the journal Particles.

"In the 1920s, Edwin Hubble and George Lemaitre discovered that the more distant the galaxy is, the faster it moves away from Earth," Shamir said. "That discovery led to the Big Bang theory, suggesting that the universe started to expand around 13.8 billion years ago. At around the same time, preeminent astronomer Fritz Zwicky proposed that galaxies that were more distant from Earth did not really move faster."

Observational study supports century-old theory that challenges the Big Bang

A Kansas State University engineer recently published results from an observational study in support of a century-old theory that directly challenges the…

phys.org

I found this very good article on how to increase happiness based on activities that one chooses to do, as well as tips to creatively increase enjoyment of activities that are not typically fun.

Quote

Time is the great equalizer in life. No matter where you live, what you do for work, or how much money you have, we are all granted 24 hours in a day that we can choose to optimize accordingly. The sobering truth is that a lot of this time is spent on mundane activities (sleeping, chores) and obligations (work). However, even the busiest of us have some free time to do with as we please. This raises the focal question of this post: What activities are best for making us happy?

How to Spend Time to Maximize Happiness

Learn which activities make people the most and least happy on average, and how you can use this information to your advantage

www.psychologytoday.com

Quote from Kalosyni

appears there is a kind of "language of abstractions"

Of course, I realize that "doing philosophy" employs the use of abstractions.

Some further thoughts: Today, I look around my house and see a build-up of miscellaneous objects ("entropy" lol). The kitchen has items that need to be put away, as does the bedroom and the bathroom (livingroom looks mostly okay). Then there is the spare bedroom which is being used for storage, but things are building into disorganized piles.

I could say that I value "order", but for me it is just doing what brings pleasure and what removes pain -- being able to find things easily, and highlighting the beautiful possessions that bring pleasure by beautiful form and color, rather than a misc. items, and unfinished craft projects, etc. The cause of the problem is that I need to use a better system to keep things more organized and I need to purge unnecessary/unneeded things. Yet the motivating force is pleasure/pain.

Ultimately it requires an investment of time.

Julia , if this "ACT" system works for you and results in pleasure, then that is a big "Yay!"

However, for those people who are not familiar with this system, I would caution adopting it, as it appears there is a kind of "language of abstractions" at work with the adoption of abstract values words.

There is further reading in another thread which might be of interest, in that it has discussion of values:

Thread

Pleasures of the soul, Values, Meaningful Life

Hello,

For the context: I ´ve moved from the stoic camp to the epicurean and I am learning the Epicurean principles.

In metaphysics and epistemology the Epicurean have in my opionion the better and more realistic approach.

Now I dive more into the ethics.

In ethics I wonder if Pleasure involves personal values besides the "pure bodily" pleasures.

(There is a citation which says: Beside the pleasures of seeing, hearing, tasting, touching... .I would not know any pleasure)

But I think I get it wrong.

…

Matteng

June 18, 2022 at 5:45 PM

I have not read that book, but just reflecting...as I was raised Christian so the statement "you will not taste death" meant that the soul does not die when the body dies, because the soul is eternal.

For Epicureans the opposite is believed...in De Rerum Natura, Book 3, the nature of the soul is mortal...it will die when the body dies.

Quote from Julia

"Happiness for a dog or a cat is straightforward. If pets are given shelter, food and drink, warmth, stimulation, play, and physical health they are contented. […] But many humans have all the things a nonverbal organism would need to be happy, and yet they are not. […] Literally nothing external that you can name […] [is] enough to ensure that a human will not suffer terribly. […] [And despite all evidence to the contrary, in mental health] there is the assumption of healthy normality."

This reminds me of the leaky pot analogy from Lucretius.

Thread

The Vessel Analogy At The Opening of Lucretius Book Six

I'd like to ask for input on this question about the opening of book six of Lucretius involving the "vessel" analogy. The text is below, but here's the question:

It appears that Lucretius is separating out two aspects of the defects in the "jar" - (1) the jar is leaking and cannot be filled due to leaks caused by the holes, and (2) that the jar tainted all that it took in as with a foul odor.

As to (1) It seems to me that the leaks can be pretty well identified with the analogy of the Danaides,…

Cassius

September 13, 2023 at 7:06 PM

This thread was based on some slides made for a First Monday Zoom back in June. It was an attempt to emphasize the abstract rather than the specific.

It says in the Letter to Menoeceus:

"The steady contemplation of these facts enables you to understand everything that you accept or reject in terms of the health of the body and the serenity of the soul — since that is the goal of a completely happy life."

So my intention was to highlight the importance of prioritizing the health of the body and happiness of the soul. If we only say "pleasure is the goal" it isn't going produce the same results as prioritizing the health of the body and the happiness of the soul.

Some people may want to discuss this philosophical conundrum (will this lead to "too much tranquility"?).

Quote from Julia

For me, ACT is the bridge which translates Epicurean philosophy into life goals and actionable plans (which will make me happy), and this is what I understood your other post (linked above) to be about – maybe I misunderstood?

I'm now thinking that my writing clarity may have been lacking over in that other thread. The other thread "Clarifying Your Philosophical Goal..." was likely too vague, and I didn't express my ideas as clearly as I could have. Also the title was an attempt to emphasize an abstract goal rather than specific...just as it says in the Letter to Menoeceus:

"The steady contemplation of these facts enables you to understand everything that you accept or reject in terms of the health of the body and the serenity of the soul — since that is the goal of a completely happy life."

So simply the importance of prioritizing health.

Quote from Cassius

the world is not "absolute"

The world is subject to causes and conditions, uniquely specific to a given situation.

Yet we can generally expect that if someone does something unpleasant to another person that causes pain, then the victim usually (with some exceptions) is no longer feeling congenial toward the perpetrator (to put it mildly), and most of the time will seek out justice (either through the law or by other means). So the perpetrator loses out on any future chances to interact with that person in a pleasant and friendly manner. And the victim may also harbor resentment for the rest of their lives, no longer being on speaking terms. The perpetrator will have to suffer the consequences enacted by trial and incarceration. And they will also suffer the internal guilt and regret. It is not a fun way to go through life.

...Thus we have PD 5.

I did briefly glance at the book a while ago (checked out from the library back in Oregon in 2021) but didn't get very far.

Directly reading and studying the Principal Doctrines and Vatican Sayings seems better.

Quote from Bryan

Yes the book has a very nice cover, and I occasionally enjoy antagonizing myself by randomly looking inside. I just did it again... three pages on saturated and trans-fats (starting at 195). At least it looks like it belongs in my library!