Posts by Pacatus

I will go to dinner tonight (our weekly dinner out) with the (possibly erroneous) assumption that I will make a choice of what to eat – constrained, surely, by the menu, my wallet, my personal tastes and preferences of the moment, etc. – but, nevertheless what seems like a choice, considering all such factors. Whether those factors are rooted in determinism or indeterminism. If that is an illusion, it is a deeply embedded one (and very pervasive across centuries and different cultures of humanity – some survival function?). I will still act as if I am actually doing some intentional hedonic choice and avoidance decision-making.

Nor does it matter if I am a compatibilist in the sense described by Dennett. That makes more sense to me in terms of my day-to-day engagement with circumstantial reality – but if it’s incorrect, it’s incorrect.

I want to add that I do not think of “justice” in any metaphysical sense. If someone wants to torture children (to take a deliberately harsh example), I will act to prevent that – without considering their motivations, or even the practical Epicurean social compact to “neither harm nor be harmed” (it does not matter that the child, or her parents, may not be signatory to that compact). In that sense, whilst I affirm the Epicurean idea of social justice, I am – at bottom – more of a moral non-cognitivist (let’s say that Epicurean philosophy here might provide some cognitive “fencing” around that).

Since I obviously have been interested in this discussion, thank you Onenski for bringing it to us.

Quote from Onenski

But, again, this is a metaphysical question.

Following TauPhi , I would suggest that any "answers" to that question would, perforce, remain thoroughly speculative, even if intellectually interesting. Empiricism, always subject to evidentiary change (even Kuhnian paradigm shifts), cannot address such metaphysical questions.

Quote from Onenski

The idea of Free Will Skepticism it's not that people don't make choices. The idea is that those choices are not independent of prior causes (in fact, that they are constrained totally, even if we don't see it).

I guess I would not call that “choice” but the illusion of choice. At the very least, it would seem a highly idiosyncratic usage, applying the term to behaviors that are “constrained totally.”

The same for "intentional agency" -- unless intentionality (itself a kind of choice?) is not totally constrained.

Quote from Cassius

I can understand that the corruptions of religious thinking have caused this area of discussion to require lots of hedging.

Agreed. We have a lot of focus on defining our terms here, for clear understanding, and maybe it would have been better for me to say "This is what I mean, in practical terms, by a reasonable version of free will." Or something like that.

Quote from Kalosyni

Sam Harris' book "Free Will" published in 2012

VS09. Necessity is an evil, but there is no necessity to live under the control of necessity.

VS40. He who asserts that everything happens by necessity can hardly find fault with one who denies that everything happens by necessity; by his own theory this very argument is voiced by necessity.

++++++++++++++++++++

The full pdf of Daniel Dennett’s (to my mind, quite cogent and devastating) refutation of Harris can be downloaded here: https://www.rifp.it/ojs/index.php/…/rifp.2017.0018. Interestingly, Dennett mentions Lucretius’ “swerve.”

Here is an interesting case where Dennett challenges Harris’ claim to have no control over his desires:

Harris: “And there is no way I can influence my desires – for what tools of influence would I use? Other desires?”

Dennett: “Yes, for starters.”

+++++++++++++++++++++

Because of the confusions among various understandings of “free will” (which Dennett addresses) I prefer the term “constrained choice” or “constrained agency” – that is, although facing causal/situational constraints (including endogenous ones, such as native intelligence or ability), nevertheless we have positive agency. That seems to be a version of “compatibilism.”

Quote from Nate

Why are we so uncomfortable with words that Christians have appropriated?

I can only answer for myself, Nate. Sometimes, I can, fairly readily, re-translate; sometimes with a bit of labor that seems worthwhile. But, sometimes, it seems an arduous process (for me) that I just don’t need to engage in – effort better spent elsewhere.

An old example: When I was a Christian, I used to argue with other Christians about the meaning of the word “sin” – which, neither in the Hebrew nor the Greek, meant “evil” or “immoral.” It meant error, a missing of the mark – sometimes due to personal fault, sometimes just not. The notion that “sin” was something worthy of just retributive punishment (eternal condemnation in hell) – as opposed to some form of restorative/remedial justice – seemed just daft to me: an aberrational understanding grafted onto the word. But, at some point, it seemed that I was just pounding my head on a wall – and, since leaving the fold, I have no need to consider the word further. Kudos to those who are still fighting the good fight.

Kudos to those who are still fighting the good fight over such things outside that Christian context, with other words. Kudos to you on that score (and others, like Don). But sometimes, my own baggage is such that I don’t feel the need. Better for me to move on.

Some of us see Epicureanism more as a philosophy, some as more religious in nature – some of us have a foot in both camps (as do I: I tilt toward the philosophical, which seems the safer space for me, but have some affinity for the more religious view). Some of have more missionary interests; some of us are just trying to put the teachings into practice in our own lives as best we are able, given our personal situations – both as individuals and as part of wider communities, family and the like. None of those have to be polar, let alone adversarial, positions (though they can become so.)

There will be disagreements among us – some of them strongly felt, some of them sharply stated. None of us are immune from error (especially me, stubborn though I am); but none of us need shrug off our convictions. Some of us tend (at least sometimes) to learn more from debate than simple study; some less so. Argument among friends can be valuable and valued – among entrenched adversaries, generally useless (and sometimes erstwhile friends become such adversaries, irreparably so).

I have in the past relished such argument. But, as I’ve gotten older (slow learner!), I’ve realized that, more often than not, it has a corrosive effect on both my emotional and physical well-being. So, this year, I told myself I would swear off. Thus far, I have been less than successful at restraining my entrenched tendencies (and reacting unwisely to old indoctrinations). And I appreciate being called out on that, by friends, when I fail. I will try to do better. I will strive to be more pacatus: peaceful – outwardly and inwardly. Simply expressing my thoughts, and listening to others. (Still stubborn, though … )

Welcome Ataraktosalexandros.

Quote from DavidN

As if reality is wrong because it doesn't match his model, and because of this it's become one of my main gripes with current scientific culture as well.

That was – and so far as I am able to tell, still is – true in spades for the neoclassical economics I spent so many hard hours learning way back when. Even with the post-Keynesian-institutionalist and behavioral economics correctives, the old models are still the mainstream – and realism eschewed.

Quote from Cassius

Pacatus it would not be appropriate for me to speak for or about Elayne's reasons for leaving other than to say that she posted about pursuing her own initiatives, and to say that she would always be welcome back.

Understood!

I went back to this old thread, which Cassius had recommended to me way back (well, “way back” for me ). Discussion of the Society of Epicurus' 20 Tenets of 12/21/19

The discussion is wide-ranging, but I think there is a lot of food-for-thought on what criteria one “must” accept to be called “an Epicurean” – and by whom? I want to disassociate my suggestions from anything like that. I especially appreciated Elayne’s and Elli’s and Cassius’ comments in that thread. (I’ve always been particularly attracted by Elayne’s takes. What happened to her?)

EDIT: Oh! I see that Cassius has already linked that thread.

Quote from Don

Here at this forum we have a group of individuals who want to retain their autonomy, independence, individual interpretations (granted, within certain guidelines) with just enough moderation to keep things civil but with no one/way to "interpret" what direction is more "correct" (orthodox?) than another. Note, I don't think there is anyone who can interpret with absolute authority!

I wholeheartedly agree. (Also with your comments on SoFE; I certainly could not squeeze myself into that kind of formal hierarchy.)

My suggestions were aimed at making mostly any developing, more formal, especially in-person, groups safe places for people who want to explore Epicureanism for their own lives, since that seems to be a direction some would like to move in – and I drew on how this forum community operates as well, while using the 12 language as a way to try to express it, since their guidelines made a safe place when I needed it. (I have no suggestions for any changes for here!).

I would never dream of claiming any authority to set out criteria defining what an Epicurean must be – let alone a “True Epicurean™.” Hell, you know that I even feel uncomfortable calling myself “an Epicurean”!

So, if there’s anything helpful in what I posted, I’m glad. If not, that’s okay. Take whatever might be helpful and leave the rest.

“Epicureanism says hi, with a text full of music, food, senses, and pleasure!”

Oh, yeah!

Quote from Bryan

The only hint I have is that he quotes Eudoxus, who said "it is impossible to decide, if one hesitates (διστάσης) between two similar causes, whether this one or that is more responsible."

Using the metaphor of a two-humped bactrian camel?

Thoughts on Organization

The following are loosely adapted (and stripped down) from the “twelve traditions” perspective of AA and other 12-step groups:

1. The Epicurean Community (the “Garden”) exists for the common well-being and happiness of its members, as founded in Epicurean philosophy and based in friendship.
   
   
2. There is only one authority for the Community, and that is the Canon,* as it has evolved and is actively interpreted by the Community members themselves.
   
   
3. The only requirement for membership is the sincere desire to learn and apply Epicurean philosophy personally in one’s life, according to one’s own circumstances and understanding.
   
   There are no “loyalty oaths” or “pledges of allegiance” required.
   
   
4. The Epicurean Community is a community, not an institution. Hierarchical structure should be minimized – while recognizing leadership roles such as “administrator” or “monitor” or “secretary” and the like (for in-person as well as online groups and meetings) as necessary for the functioning of the Community.
   
   
5. Although professionals in various disciplines (such as philosophy, sociology, physics, neuro-science and the like) may have much value to add to the understanding of Epicurean philosophy – especially its application in modern times – the Garden is not a professional association, but a community of like-minded people, all of whom have a voice.
   
   With that said, individual members have varied areas of expertise (such as translation) and levels of knowledge pertaining to the philosophy itself, which ought to be acknowledged and respected.
   
   
6. No dues or membership fees should be required (as this might effectively deter from membership some who sincerely desire to learn and apply Epicurean philosophy). But voluntary contributions may be openly welcomed as needed to support the practical functioning of the Community – so long as they are not used to create a “ranked hierarchy” of membership status on that basis.
   
   This is not to preclude membership designations based on such things as participation in the Community.
   
   
7. Both the Community (as a group) and individual members may pursue outreach activities for the purpose of bringing Epicurean philosophy to as wide an audience as possible. But members who prefer to remain anonymous as such, outside the Community, should have that anonymity honored and protected by all in the Community.
   
   
8. No member of the Community should ever, in such a way as to implicate the Community (or pretend to speak on its behalf), express any opinion outside on such controversial issues as those of partisan politics or sectarian religion.
   
   (Anyone may, of course, express their personal understanding of how Epicurean philosophy informs their opinions on such matters – while taking care not to implicate the Community or its other members.)
   
   
9. All discourse among members should be characterized by civility, respect and friendliness – even (and especially) where strong opinions differ.

++++++++++++++++

* “Canon” here could include all of the “classical” Epicurean corpus – such as Lucretius; or only the extant works attributed to Epicurus himself, with others included as “classical” interpreters.

+++++++++++++++

These are my thoughts – but I would not argue them, or make an issue out of any of them. I’m just, personally, not that strongly wedded to the question.

A simplistic example of what Wittgenstein meant by confusing the context of different “language games” –

Behind a closed door, I am heard to say: “The goal is to topple the king.”

Outside the door, royal guards hear my utterance and rush to warn the king of a pending coup.

But I am really hunched over a chess board, talking about the ultimate goal of chess: checkmate.

Quote from Kalosyni

I wasn't specific enough

I doubt that perfect precision in language is ever possible. Maybe the most we can strive for is to understand one another (in whatever Wittgensteinian “language game” sets the context).

But you’ve laid out some good guidelines here – so I wouldn’t lament that you weren’t “specific enough”: I think we all get it (within the “language game” where we are aware of Sedley and Frances Wright) – so I think you did a good job.

+++++++++++++++++++

EDIT: I also think this goes to Philodemus’ understanding of poetry (as opposed to philosophical prose) – and its purpose. Didactic poetry is possible, but even there (à la Lucretius) we have metaphor and such, that need to be interpreted.

“Even the principle of Epicurean pleasure requires making sacrifices.” It requires choices and trade-offs. And not sacrifice to the “principle” – let alone to some “principle of Epicureanism.” And the trade-offs are simply for the practical goal of happiness defined as the most pleasant/pleasurable life (which includes others). You seem to be largely just substituting the word “principle” for “ideal.” Or perhaps deliberately confusing them. Are you trying to craft an “Epicureanism” that is really subsumed under Stoic values and ethics? It sounds like it.

I am sure you’ll be able to find plenty of people to take loyalty oaths and pledges of obedience, and to sacrifice themselves on the altar of your principles, Peter, at the beck of their leaders (under whatever “ism” you invoke). I will not be one of them – and that’s on principle. (Argumentum finale est.)

Quote from Peter Konstans

The requirement that people should be willing to sacrifice their lives to save their friends and maintain their honor and integrity would ensure that we attract serious people.

That strikes me as quite different from being willing to sacrifice one's life for a set of dictated principles.