Posts by TauPhi

I have to ask, because I really don't understand how DeWitt's statement at the beginning of this episode is presented as relevant to the discussion. I'm talking about this:

Quote

The adoption of the Euclidean textbook as a model involved, of course, the procedure by deductive reasoning. The Twelve Elementary Principles were first stated and then demonstrated like theorems. Each theorem. in turn, once demonstrated, became available as a major premise for the deduction of subsidiary theorems. [...]

Where his 'of course' chain of statements come from? How do we know about the adoption of the Euclidean textbook and its consequences? What Twelve Elementary Principles? Where were they first stated? Where were they demonstrated like theorems? How each of this theorem that we know nothing about became a premise for anything?

Is there anything out there that would validate all these claims as DeWitt doesn't provide any sources for his statements? If they are nothing but his speculations, I don't see how they can be considered relevant to the discussion.

Quote from Cassius

And the very thought that we should restrict ourselves from exploring space and learning more about the universe is antithetical to Epicurus' emphasis on studying nature as the best way to live happily.

Cassius , I don't know what you're trying to achieve by stating the above but if you're suggesting I'm against learning, getting knowledge or exploring space, than you can't be further from the truth. I was talking about not pursuing physical contact with Epicurean gods, not about not pursuing anything at all. Your conclusions have nothing to do with what I said, whatsoever.

Quote from Cassius

Again, I think we're just in fundamental disagreement here because you are maintaining that it is inherently impossible to gain additional knowledge in the future (after space travel) than we have today, and I think that's a fundamentally flawed perspective.

Yeah, except that's not my perspective at all. Once again, you're twisting my words about pursuing physical contact with Epicurean gods into what suits you and it's in almost perfect opposition to what I think about gaining knowledge.

Quote from Cassius

It's possible Tau Phi that you have a unique perspective that makes you impervious to concerns about divinity, and again if that is so I applaud you for it.

As I said, my perspective is not relevant to the conversation. I'm talking strictly about Epicurean perspective regarding gods.

Quote from Cassius

His direction clearly seems to be, "Supernatural gods do not exist, but the idea of "divinity" is not crazy at all, and there is good reason that people think about it."

I absolutely agree that this is the case.

Quote from Cassius

And to repeat, even the "idealists" who reject the view that Epicurus thought his gods really existed appear to me to be essentially in agreement with how important a question this is. Having a proper perspective on divinity is a lot more than saying negatively "supernatural gods don't exist." It's an essential part of the picture to understand where the issue comes from and to have a positive position that relates to where we want to go in living as close to happily and imperishably as we can.

As far as I can comprehend Epicurus' view of gods, I think his gods were very much real in a physical sense. And he tried to make perfectly clear that they are not supernatural, not interested in human affairs and this is the proper perspective on divinity - think about it, marvel at it but don't physically touch it. He did this to remove the fear of gods and to shut the door behind such fear. Your insistence on the possibility of contact with gods by the means of space travel opens the door again to the fear of gods and I think this is an anti-Epicurean position and again, please don't read it as I am against knowledge in general because such accusations are frankly speaking ridiculous.

Quote from Cassius

He said that there are infinite numbers worlds with life on them, some like and some unlike ours, and all his basic definition requires is that they be living, happy, and imperishable.

The first part is about non-gods. The second part is about gods. They don't mix.

Quote from Cassius

So if you're clarifying that you mean don't "physically" hunt for them, then I'd agree,

I am responding to your parallel of looking for extraterrestrial life to looking for Epicurean gods. I am talking about active, physical pursuit of finding life (and gods) in the universe, not about an abstract deliberation on their existence or non-existence.

Quote from Cassius

at least until we make further progress in space travel etc.

And again I have to disagree with this, taking the Epicurean perspective into consideration. It doesn't matter how much progress we make. Even if we have technology to be everywhere at the same time in the universe, Epicurean gods are off limit to humans. This is non-negotiable. Otherwise, the idea of such gods collapses entirely and Epicurus is proven dead wrong in this area of his philosophy.

I am not expressing my personal opinion about gods in post #2, Cassius . My personal opinion is not relevant in this thread at all. My point is, Epicureans should not engage in an attempt to actively seek a physical contact with their gods. Epicurean gods do not interfere in human affairs. Otherwise they wouldn't be blessed. I don't see how my post #2 is dramatically incompatible with Epicurean philosophy. On the contrary, looking for a contact with such gods is incompatible with the philosophy.

Quote from Cassius

"How do you look for gods when you don't know what gods might look like?"

I agree that it's rather hard to look for something if you have no idea what you're looking for. One may be looking for a brick, got hit in the head by it and keep looking for a brick just because he doesn't know what a brick is.

But the answer to your question about the hunt for gods, if those are Epicurean gods, is: "You don't." Epicurean gods do not interfere with human affairs. Whenever you find creatures that are living beings, blessed, and imperishable, you know for sure that those are not Epicurean gods. The act of finding them establishes interference, therefore whatever you have just found is definitely not Epicurean gods. Looking for such gods makes as much sense as trying to see an invisible elephant. If you see it, it's definitely not an invisible elephant.

On the surface, the quote may look like an attractive proposition to people who gravitate towards Epicureanism. On closer inspection, the quote is deeply anti-Epicurean, however. It reveals preference of non-existence over existence. Such a sentiment leads to philosophical pessimism where the only sensible course of action is taking Twain's hundred million years holiday prematurely. Out of nowhere, we find ourselves in the world of Arthur Schopenhauer or Philipp Mainländer.

Mark Twain had some 75 years of opportunity to resume his holiday if he so truly desired and yet he didn't take it. He died when opportunity was no longer opportunity but an unavoidable necessity.

I also don't think Twain thought through the nature of non-existence as he seems to romanticise it with the absence of undesirable feelings (worry, grief etc.) and the presence of desirable feelings (content, satisfaction etc.). Non-existence offers nothing.

That said, I also am a huge fan of Mark Twain. He was an exceptional writer.

Quote from Don

Where does he get "pale"? Did I miss a text? Maybe from Epictetus? I'll have to dig around unless someone knows and shares.

I wouldn't spend too much time trying to understand 'pale Epicureans'. The author seems to really love adjectives and probably just meant 'bleak', not 'pale'. The whole article is a perfect illustration why some people should have limited access to a thesaurus, or in the style of the author, the employment of a thesaurus should be categorically and unqualifiedly abstemious.

Thanks, Cassius . Great outline that can lead to an interesting discussion. I'm looking forward to it.

One thing that probably needs correction so it doesn't misrepresent the current science:

"3.1. Some argue that current science indicates that the entire universe is expanding from a center, and that this indicates a beginning point in both time and space."

I'm assuming you're talking about the big bang theory here. According to the theory, there wasn't a beginning point and the universe doesn't expand from the centre. The big bang gave rise to both the matter AND space as we know it and over time the space expanded to astronomical size as we get to experience it now. So the big bang happened everywhere at the same time. At the big bang moment 'here' and 'everywhere' were the same thing. 'The beginning point' was the whole universe. It's just got rather big over time and it expands everywhere, not from the central point.

I might be wrong, I'm not a physicist so maybe Martin can double check this.

With all due respect, Cassius and Kalosyni , I think you missed the purpose of the lecture completely. The purpose is to present few areas of Epicureanism and make people think about how and to what extent practical application is beneficial. It's about questions like: Can I take 3 types of desires as described by the philosophy and use this knowledge in everyday life successfully? Do I need something else or is it sufficient to make good decisions? Did Epicureans got friendship right? Should I change something in my approach towards my friends? What are the personal implications of acknowledging pleasure as the good? etc.

I think these are interesting questions to focus on instead of deconstructing the lecture for no other reason than showing if the presenter is 83% or only 68% accurate in his presentation of Epicureanism as you understand it. It's not an advanced course in the philosophy. And even if you're only interested in exposing how wrong the dude is, make sure you give valid arguments. Accusation that he's cherry picking makes no sense. This lecture is exactly about cherry picking. It's not a complete presentation of Epicureanism in 50min (which is impossible to do even if tried, which is not here). The lecturer picked few areas only and he explicitly says so. I don't understand Kalosyni's point in post #5 either. Kurt Lampe makes it crystal clear that for Epicureans all pleasure is good. Both mental and physical.

An interesting ~50min lecture by Kurt Lampe focusing on practical application of Epicureanism. First 7min are dedicated to general introduction after which the proper lecture starts. Mr. Lampe asks intriguing and sometimes inconvenient questions (e.g., is Epicurean typology of desires useful in real life? And if yes, to which extent?)

Quote from Joshua

It took me ages to track down even the French text of this epitaph, and I'm posting it here against the day I decide to learn French.

You got me curious, Joshua. And since I find French accent quite annoying, I'm pretty sure the day I decide to learn French will be the same day the hell freezes. Therefore, there's no point in resisting the temptation to know what the poem is about. I decided to butcher the poetry via machine translation.

I took the transcript from here: https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Rons…e,_1554.djvu/36
I took the liberty of replacing all 'long eses' with regular 'eses' and butchered the poem into what follows. I fully expect Mr. Ronsard's ghost to poke holes in all white sheets I conveniently don't posses and use them for dramatic effects during his infernal howls while floating over my bed. What can I say? I'll have a night to remember tonight.

Anyway, here it is if anyone's interested:

Epitaph for Michel Marulle Tarchaniot, from Constantinnople.

Speak good words
Muses, & with my songs,
He faintly agreed with the sounds
From you Luts, & from you Violes.

Here is Marule's Tomb,
Prayed, what ever from heaven,
The sweet manna, & the sweet honey,
And the sweet dew falls there:

I hit the Tomb of Marulle,
From him Tombe didn’t sin
The veins letters of his name,
He lives there with Tibulle.

Above the Elysées rivers,
And under the shade of the myrtle trees,
An noise of waters sings its verses
Between well-prized souls.

Pincetant to lyre cornüe,
In a circle, in the beautiful middle of a valley,
All the first guide the ball
Digging through the grassy wheel

When these sub hums shine
The sweet flames of love,
The Heroines all around
From his Latin mouth hang:

Tibulle and more and more sa Delie
Dance, holding his hand,
Corynne lover Rommain,
And Porperse holds his Cynthia.

But when its gray worms gather
The old praises of the Gods,
The oldest Roman poets
Beans a son Luc s’emerueillent,

Dequoy him born on the riuage
D’Helesponte, sang so well
That his Thalia has overcome
Theirs, in their own language.

Dear soul, for beautiful things
That in your book there is understood,
Take these small prized eyelets,
These beautiful liz, & its beautiful roses.

Always light be the earth
To your bones, and to your tomb,
curling up with my own branch
Tousiours climbs the Lhierre green.

I was recreationally reading the Gnomologium Vaticanum (not to be confused with the Gnomologium Vaticanum Epicureum) and when I stumbled upon sayings related to Aristippus, I started to laugh out loud. Even if a fraction of those sayings are true, Aristippus was quite a character. If you're curious what the title quotation is about, check saying 39 here: https://ryanfb.xyz/gnomvat/gnomvat

I strongly suggest to go through other 576 sayings as well. And for those interested in the ancient world, investigate Ryan Baumann's website in detail. You will find links to some real treasure there - like scans of 277 Loebs that are currently in public domain or Index of Ancient Greek Lexica.

Quote from Julia

I don't glorify pain, it is not an end in itself, but I do embrace pain and discomfort, because I know it is not just one, but indeed the only path towards pleasure, which is my goal and guides my selection of which pains to embrace and which to shun (because it either does or doesn't outweighing the pain previously endured to attain it).

I will try to answer Cassius's initial question by showing that pain is not the only path towards pleasure. Julia Please don't take what follows as a criticism of your position. I think hedonic calculus is not only subjective but strictly personal and it's everyone's responsibility to make the calculus as efficient for themselves as possible. Whatever works for you, I'm happy for you and it's not my business or intention to criticize. I will just present my position which happen to be different to yours.

Some years ago, I started to realise that it's rather easy to appreciate pleasure when it comes from pain. In other words, when we move from discomfort to comfort, it's rather obvious to most people that this is a good time to feel good. I also started to play with the idea of pleasure as the ever present background to life. The background which is largely neglected by people. It's easy to detect pleasure in a glass of water in the middle of Sahara but awfully difficult to detect pleasure in a glass of water standing at the bottom of crystal clear waterfall with infinite supply of refreshing water at our disposal. The abundance makes people indifferent.

To my understanding, by observing that the absence of pain is pleasure Epicurus removed 'neutral state' for the purpose of tuning people into pleasure that is provided by nature in abundance. In other words, to teach people to feel pleasure when they feel nothing because feeling nothing is missed opportunity due to our misjudgement of reality we find ourselves in.

So my answer to the question: Why Do We Consider The Absence of Pain To Be Pleasure? is this: To gain ability of noticing and thriving in abundance of pleasure available to us instead of neglecting, being overwhelmed, being ashamed and ultimately rejecting pleasure that doesn't come from pain. After all, we are trained to firmly believing that there's no such thing as free lunch, right? Free pleasure must be repulsive. Earn it by suffering or reject it completely. Well, no. Pain is not the only path towards pleasure. It's definitely one of the paths. We cannot avoid pain. It will come whether we like it or not. We should learn from pain how to deal with it and how not to be broken by it, sometimes even how to transform it to pleasure but mostly, we should realise, appreciate and learn how to live our lives unashamedly in pleasure.

I'm a bit late to the party, but at least I know I can't possibly make a worse job with birthday wishes that Cicero.

Joshua , Kalosyni : Have a fantastic next year. And in case I'm not here in a year to wish you another fantastic year, have a fantastic rest of your lives.

Brilliant, Bryan . Thank you very much.

Quote from Cassius

I know some of us are shying away from these conclusions, but I don't think that Epicurus would have shied away from them any more than from his other radical conclusions. This is a subject we need to examine much more closely but I see no supernatural force or "necessity" that any particular object must be limited to a set and particular life span.

I suspect Epicurus to shy away from such conclusions if he had lived in our times. He would have been aware of laws of thermodynamics, for example. As far as we currently know, you don't need supernatural force of any kind to limit immortality. Natural forces do the trick perfectly well. If any compound of atoms is to perform meaningful work (that is to exchange energy and interact with its surroundings), immortality is out of the equation.

I am perfectly aware that human knowledge is not at the point (not even close) where we can claim with authority what is physically possible and what is impossible but I think Epicurus would be very cautious regarding the immortality of compounds of atoms of any sort by any means.

Quote

... it is possible to maintain that given an Epicurean physical theory and the doctrine that all compounds will dissolve, the Epicurean gods, as compounds, are yet still imperishable in the sense that they are morally incorruptible.

It's morally acceptable to kill a mosquito but killing a cat is morally unacceptable. It was morally acceptable for Epicurus to own slaves but it's morally unacceptable for us. I'm giving these examples to show that human morality is liquid, ever changing set of societal rules arbitrary agreed upon by majority of people at any given time.

To say that Epicurean gods are morally incorruptible basically means to me: Let's grant gods human liquid, ever changing morality and then let's make people believe they have to behave accordingly since they have godly example to imitate.

I see few problems with gods and morality combined. Epicurean morally incorruptible gods interpretation sounds awfully familiar to me. Is it just me or is it just another code name for Ten Commandments? After all, these dos and donts are perfectly sensible to live by in societies. Therefore, these commandments must have been given to us by a god to follow.

4th icon from the right at the top of the screen - it's called 'Control Panel'. Click it and at the very bottom, right in the centre of the pop-up menu you'll find 'Logout' button.

Joshua Around 40min mark when you talk about Empedocles and the four elements, I think we may already have a better source than Lucretius dealing with this failed idea. P. Herc. 1148, column 34 seems to be a refutation of philosophers endorsing the four elements as building blocks of reality coming directly from Epicurus in his 'On Nature - Book 14'.

I'm not going to pretend I know what I'm talking about, but if Bryan or Don or anyone else who knows Ancient Greek feels like spending some time on the fragment below, we may have few more words from the Dude himself to talk about.

DCLP/Trismegistos 59752 = LDAB 856

[πρὸς τοὺς]
ὁρίζοντας σχῆμα π̣[υρ]ὸς ἴ-
διο̣ν ἢ γῆς ἢ ὕδατος ἢ̣ [ἀ]έ̣ρος,
ὅτι γελοιότεροί εἰσι τῶν οὐχ ὁ-
ριζόντων μέν, κατὰ δὲ τὰς
παραθέσεις ὁμολογησάν-
[τ]ων ἂν ἢ ἑκουσίως ἢ ἀκου-
[σί]ως γίνεσθαί τινα σχημά-
[τ]ων ἴδια εἴδη καθ' ἑκάστην
[οὐ]σιώδη ῥηθεῖσαν ἂν σύγ-
[κρ]ισιν· ο̣ἱ μὲγ γὰρ τοῖς μὲν
[στ]οιχείο[ι]ς ἁμαρτάνουσιν,
[ἀ]κόλουθ̣ον δέ τι τούτοις
[μ]ᾶλλον, οὕτω λέγοντες,
[λέ]γ̣οιεν ἄ̣ν, καὶ ὅλως δὲ τὴν
[τα]ῖς μείξ̣εσι[ν] παραλλαγήν·
[οἱ] δὲ πρὸς τὴ̣ν   ̣  ̣  ̣ σ   ̣[  ̣  ̣] δι-
[ὰ σχημ]άτων̣ π[⁦ -ca.?- ⁩]