Posts by Todd

Also, this...seems important:

tribe | anthropology

tribe, in anthropology, a notional form of human social organization based on a set of smaller groups (known as bands), having temporary or permanent…

www.britannica.com

Here are some of the key Greek words from PD39, and their meanings. (Thanks to Nate for that awesome compilation & glossary!)

Quote from Nate

ALLOPHYLA - AΛΛAΦYΛA - ἀλλόφυλά - /aːlː'o.pʰyːlaː/ - plural declension of ἀλλόφυλος (allóphulos) from ἄλλος (állos, “different”) + φῦλον (phúlon, “type”) meaning “different group”, “race”, “stock”, “kin”, “sex”, “religion”, “tribe”, “country”, “ethnicity”, “foreign”

HOMOPHYLA - OMOΦYΛA - ὁμόφυλα - /ho.'mo.pʰyːla/ - a plural infection of ομόφυλος (omóphulos) from ὁμός (homós, “same”) + φῦλον (phúlon) meaning “same race”, “stock”, “kin”, “sex”, “religion”, “tribe”, “country”, “ethnicity”.

SYSTESAMENOS - ΣYΣTHΣAMENOΣ - συστησάμενος - /syːstεː'sa.me.nos/ - related to the word συνίστημι (synístemi, “to combine”) meaning “make friends”, “unite together”,“treat akin to oneself”, “prepared a family”, “forged a community [of all the creatures]”.

The rest of the words seem relatively generic, but those three clearly refer to people. Or in the case of the last one, it seems like it would usually refer to people, and given the presence of the other 2 words, that seems like the clear intent.

It seems presumptuous of many of the translators to disregard the "people" connotations of these terms and just refer to "things".

Again, many thanks to Nate for that wonderful resource!

Quote from Cassius

He spends so much time stressing how things that were previously just become unjust when circumstances change that the whole presentation seems to be weighted more toward establishing the limitations of the abstract concept of justice rather than specific examples of justice in the real world.

I agree.

I also find it interesting that PD39 follows immediately after the PDs talking about justice.

I see PD39 as relating to the idea of justice as much as (or more so than) friendship. Based on the awkwardness of the translations, I doubt Epicurus even used the word for friendship there. Was he instead referring to the establishment and content of the agreements that constitute justice?

Implied in PD39 is the insight that cooperation is far more productive of pleasure than conflict or isolation.

If our ethic is to pursue pleasure, and cooperation with others (to the extent possible) is the best way of doing that, then I think that provides a basis for saying more specific things about justice and which kinds of behavior are going to get us the most pleasure in the long run.

I think primordial is the wrong word. (I'm now waiting for Don or Nate to go find where Epicurus used exactly that word )

I think the image of atoms falling in parallel was an imaginary construction Epicurus used as evidence that there must be a swerve. I don't think it was intended to describe an actually existing state of the universe.

If there were no swerve, there would never be anything other than isolated atoms falling in parallel. Nothing more complex than individual atoms would ever come into existence. But other things do exist. Therefore...

Quote from Cassius

...the big issue, which appears to be at least in part that the question is how "much" of a deviation occurs.

Is this really a big issue?

I had a similar reaction to that article.

Taken seriously, it's the complete abdication of personal responsibility.

How much evil/pain/suffering has been tolerated because of the belief that whatever happens is part of a providential plan that we must not oppose?

However, we should remember that most people who hold these ideas are more sinned against than sinning (so to speak). The harshest criticism should be reserved for those who knowingly use these ideas to manipulate others.

I like that, Don. Taking it a bit further...

Senses = the test of what is real; the primary tool of physics (natural sciences)

Feelings = the test of what is good; the primary tool of ethics

Anticipations = ???

Just to fit it into that scheme, I'm tempted to say anticipations are the test of what is logical, the primary tool of the formal sciences (logic, mathematics). But I don't think there is any support for that being Epicurus' meaning.

Happy New Year, everyone!

Quote from Little Rocker

Ha! I'm only getting a sense of the meaning of 'DeWitting' from context, but perhaps this could be a case where the apparent tension can be resolved. Maybe DeWitt means to suggest that Sextus was never particularly hostile to Epicurus (as so many were), while Hahmann means to remind the reader that Sextus was a skeptic

DeWitt makes much ado about suspecting non-Epicurean sources (particularly Cicero) of not being honest in presenting Epicurus' views. Probably rightly so.

I thought it was amusing that here we have a rare (possibly unique) case of DeWitt declaring a source to be unprejudiced, while another author is raising alarms.

And you're right, that those two statements are technically not contradictory.

Quote from Cassius

As I read all three the key point seems to be something like that every impression strikes us as "real" from the perspective that it is in fact an impression received by a sense faculty, but that each impression has to be evaluated before our minds can judge any inference from that impression to be "true" or "false" to the full external reality.

That seems reasonable to me, but I'll admit that I'm not sure I completely understood Hahmann.

Also, I found these two statements curious:

Quote from DeWitt

...Sextus Empiricus, who is almost unique among critics in exhibiting no prejudice against Epicurus.

Quote from Hahmann

...in the case of Sextus Empiricus, we are also dealing with a hostile source who uses Epicurean philosophy in order to reach his own skeptical conclusions

Is Hahmann out-DeWitting DeWitt?!?!

They are working for me, but I did notice something that might be the issue:

The URL in the links looks like this:

https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/filebase/index.php?file/43-nikolsky-epicurus-on-pleasure/

But the URL it actually resolves to is this:

https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/filebase/file/43-nikolsky-epicurus-on-pleasure/

The server is providing a (correct) 301 response that points to the correct URL.

However, browsers will sometimes cache these things, and then automatically give you a different URL than the one you clicked on, without even asking the server.

For Don, I'd suggest clearing his browser's cache. In Firefox, this would be under History -> Clear Recent History. Then uncheck everything except Cache. Edit: you'd also want to set Time range to clear to Everything.

For Cassius, I'd suggest updating the URLs in those links. Likely only an issue for people who have been using the site since those URLs moved, though. Need not be a high priority.

OK, so here is my summary of that article.

Epicurus said something like "all sensations are true."

He was arguing against skepticism, and he meant "real" (I would say, "actually experienced") as opposed to "factually correct".

That he didn't mean "factually correct" is abundantly clear from other things he said.

Quote

As a philosopher he was engaged in the struggle for survival in a den of philosophers, many of them sceptics. Before them he maintained the doctrine that all sensations are true in the sense of real. In practice his attitude was thoroughly pragmatic, like that of the modern scientist. He looked upon sensations as possessing an infinite range of validity.

I also liked the following quote, because it's something I had been thinking myself, as a response to idea that reason cannot refute the senses.

Quote

Far more deceptive...is the third prong of the argument: reason cannot refute the sensations because reason is dependent upon the sensations. This is true in one sense and false in another. The sense in which it is true is this: reason in the aggregate cannot refute sensation in the aggregate, because reason depends upon the senses for its data. The sense in which it is false is this: reason in the aggregate cannot refute the particular sensation.... In this sense, reason constantly refutes the sensations.

Maybe I'm jumping the gun here, but if we agree that it is false as generally understood, what is the value of continuing to use it?

Need to read the article though...perhaps all will become clear.

Quote

The aim of this article is to show reasons for believing that the statement in the heading is false as usually understood

So far so good!

In what way are the sense experiences of a person under the influence of psychedelics "true"?

I can only make sense of "all sensations are true," as meaning "all sensations are experienced," or, "all sensations are sensed."

If by "true", you mean, "corresponding to reality", I would have to say that statement is false.

How would you respond?

Yes, agreed.

In this case, the only clue to DeWitt's reasoning given in the text is the extensive use of satire. Presumably one would not use satire to engage in a debate with rival philosophers, in which one expected to be taken seriously.

That does indeed seem like flimsy evidence.

Quote from Don

About halfway through and had a thought about being open to other ideas, etc. At least the Epicureans didn't walk themselves off from other philosophers' ideas. The number of books they wrote against other schools show that they definitely engaged with other ideas. To counter them and argue against them, of course; but they were engaged in the marketplace of ideas.

I feel like you are baiting me, Don, and I'm not above taking it!

That is all true, of course. But I think a more focused approach is required when trying to clarify (or communicate) one's own ideas.

Also, since this is a thread about DeWitt, it seems appropriate to cite him for support:

Quote

In the case of the refutative writings...the objective was not victory in controversy, but rather to discredit all rival teachings...and to insulate the minds of disciples against all other doctrines.

I take that with a grain of salt, though, as possibly an over-broad generalization. Still, I think it makes my point that different approaches are required in different contexts.

That is an excellent point, Joshua.

In my comment that you quoted, I was actually thinking of way further back - the neolithic and earlier, the arrival of empire with Sumer (possibly), etc.

But the point you make about ancient Greece is a good one, and I fully agree. (And you put it so eloquently!)

I would add only 2 things:

1) There were competing influences too: power-seekers looking to use new ideologies (or old ones) to secure or expand their power. I thought the observation in the paper about Solon was particularly interesting/damning/incriminating. Probably the competition was a major factor in making Greek civilization so fertile.

2) Also, remember the Greek city-states were built on a slave economy (like most other ancient civilizations, so not a unique failing of the Greeks). They accomplished great things, no doubt, and deserve credit for that. But slavery was a huge fly in the ointment. Slavery could also have been an ideological factor - as in, "we can't let all those slaves start getting any crazy ideas."

Quote from Cassius

No doubt there is also a non manipulative reason to develop generic words for different uses

Right. To be clear, I am not saying anyone who wants to discuss good or the good is being manipulative. Certainly among Epicureans it would be quite the opposite.

Quote

Plato sought to distinguish sophists from philosophers, arguing that a sophist was a person who made his living through deception, whereas a philosopher was a lover of wisdom who sought the truth.

LOL!

Student: Master Plato, how can one distinguish a philosopher from a sophist?

Plato: a philosopher is a person who loves wisdom and truth, such as myself. A sophist is a lying liar who lies.

That's from the Wikipedia entry for Sophist, BTW - not from the paper Don linked to.