18. There are two levels of reality, the level of atoms within the void that is timeless and the level of the sensible world set in time. The opposite holds no validity."
This is new to me, and a bit surprising. Did Epicurus say this? Where is it coming from?
Sounds almost Platonic.
What good is knowing your destination if you don't know which road to take to get there?
It's a necessary first step to getting there, isn't it?
Would you blindly follow a road if you didn't know where it was taking you? Maybe you are simply enjoying the trip for it's own sake. That's fine, but still, you'd want to know that it's not taking you into the middle of a war zone (for example).
The reason allegories and parables are useful, like art and music and the like, is that they help people get a firm grip of the core of the issue and hold onto it confidently when troubles and challenges arise, as they inevitably do. The Michelle Pinto graphic crystalizes the anti-supernatural aspect of Epicurean philosophy in the "one picture is worth a thousand words" way. Music is similarly effective.
I was discussing something like this with my 8-year old recently.
She was trying to impress me with the fact that she had memorized the lyrics to an entire song. I tried (possibly failed) to explain how having the music to go along with it made the words of the song far more memorable.
I can easily recall the words to songs I liked (or even dumb TV commercials) from 25 years ago.
I don't see why the observation of thought processes is anything special or different from making mental note of anything else. For example, writing out one's thoughts and playing with the words - does that require a special aspect of the canon for some reason?
What I'm trying to describe is more than just a mental process. It seems to me that it is a direct source of knowledge about an aspect of reality - just not external reality.
I think that as Joshua observed repeatedly during the podcast,what we are really talking about here is contact with the outside world.
I think you're probably right that Epicurus intended the canon to be strictly about knowledge of the external world. Unfortunately then it's not a complete epistemology (in my view). It would be sufficient for physics. When it comes to ethics, I think more could have been said.
I am thinking that this entire discussion is not devoted to introspection, but how we make judgments about things in the outside world. Introspection is certainly an important subject but I don't gather it is really what is in issue here in combating skepticism.
The form of introspective knowledge I'm thinking about actually is important in making judgments about the outside world - specifically about the behavior of other people and the best ways of interacting with them. It's the basis for empathy.
Your discussion of consciousness aware of itself brought to mind the capacity to be aware of watching your own thoughts. I can easily think "I need to stop thinking about lunch" and realize I need to stop thinking about lunch and redirect my thoughts to the task at hand. Noting one's thoughts as they come up in your mind is a common method of mindfulness meditation. So, knowing that we're thinking particular thoughts is a common occurrence.
This is something I've been thinking about, and not seeing how it would fit into Epicurean epistemology.
Not only can we observe our own thoughts, but doing so is essential to make sense of other people's actions. That is, to know that other people are not mechanically responding to stimuli; they have desires, and are aiming at ends, just like we do.
So that seems like a legitimate and important source of knowledge, but how does it fit into Epicurus' system?
To be clear, I'm referring strictly to the observing of one's own mental processes. The extrapolation to understanding other people's actions definitely involves additional reasoning.
If I were doing this, some of the things I'd try to show:
But I'm not an artist, so take this as just throwing out ideas.
I guess what I was trying to say above is: the cave should be an Epicurean metaphor.
It's really quite accurate to call it Plato's Cave, though. His ideas are largely responsible for chaining people in the cave in the first place. He advised rulers to do exactly that in the same goddamned book!
Michele's friend's "breaking the chains" graphic is almost a mirrored response to the Platonic cave metaphor.
I don't think I've seen this graphic; maybe it refers to exactly what I'm about to say...
Whenever I think of the cave metaphor, I can't help but give it a meaning exactly the opposite of Plato's. It's the idealists and manipulators who have people chained in the cave focused on their false reality, while the true reality of nature is outside waiting for us to discover it.
Maybe it's just me, but that seems like a far more natural interpretation than Plato's, where everything outside the cave is an allegory. No...the stuff outside the cave is just what it looks like: the real world. What goes on inside the cave almost literally describes social media, virtual reality, etc.
The 'with whom' gives away my decision to go with 'persons,' but basically, you would have reason to translate it either way. That said, the opening construction is loosely the same in KD 40, and it does seem pretty clear there he's talking about people. So who knows, really?
For me, your mention of the opening construction of PD40 reinforces my opinion that PD39 & 40 on are really a continuation of the justice discussion, and social relations more broadly: not all "things", but also not really friendship either.
PD39 & 40 both start off with a reference to security from threats. I suspect those refer to threats from other people, which is precisely the aim of justice, but there is no need to assume that. I'm happy to concede that Epicurus is talking about any type of threat to our enjoyment of pleasure. However, it does suggest that these two PDs are closely related.
PD39 is about social relations. I am assuming that most of PD39 is talking about people.
1) "Homophyla" and "Allophyla" have too many "people" connotations to ignore without a good reason
2) It just makes a lot more sense of the rest of the PD, in my opinion
3) Several translators seem to agree, though not all
If you accept that PD39 is talking about people, then there are strong suggestions of references to justice.
Epicurus says we should try to treat as many people as possible like kin. "Like kin" implies more than mere justice. It would include justice, of course, but goes beyond. I'd call it something like active cooperation. The "as many people as possible" part of that doesn't sound like friendship to me though, because we are advised to extend it to as many people as possible. Our friends would be a subset of these relationships.
There are some people with whom we can't productively cooperate. But we also prefer not to make enemies of them. I would say these are the people we deal with by simply agreeing not to harm each other. Justice, and nothing more.
And then there are the people who won't even agree not to harm us. Or they do agree, but then harm us anyway. Epicurus says we should avoid them. Good advice, whether or not that is what Epicurus meant. And the fact that it is good advice is yet another point in favor of this interpretation.
Finally, PD40 describes the benefits of following the above procedure: the ability to live pleasantly with friends.
An important point about my interpretation of PD40 is that the friends with whom you live pleasantly are (probably) not the same people from whom you had to secure protection!
Some translations of PD40 make it sound like you obtain confidence and security by being friends with everyone around you. That might work if it was possible, but few of us are in a position to carefully curate our neighbors, classmates, co-workers, etc. Epicurean philosophy is supposed to work for everyone, not just an elite few.
My view of PD40 is more like, "Being confidently secure from your neighbors (those around you), now live pleasantly with your friends."
Epicurus never uses philia in PD39 or 40, only above in PD27 & 28. That was the "section" on friendship, IMO.
Also, this...seems important:
Here are some of the key Greek words from PD39, and their meanings. (Thanks to Nate for that awesome compilation & glossary!)
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!
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...
...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!
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.
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:
...Sextus Empiricus, who is almost unique among critics in exhibiting no prejudice against Epicurus.
...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.