Posts by TauPhi

I'm with Don on this one. I have nothing against the fundamentals as they are all in line with Epicurean physics as we know it, but please consider changing introductory sentence:

'The Elementary Principles of Nature below are as set forth by Epicurus and summarized in English by Norman Dewitt in his book “Epicurus And His Philosophy.”'

This statement is misleading. The elementary principles are set forth by Norman Dewitt and are based on Epicurean physics. Dewitt didn't just summarize these - he compiled the list. Until we know otherwise, we can't claim that Epicurus set these twelve fundamentals forth.

Also a technical remark - the links to each of the principles are currently broken.

Oh, common Joshua . The moment I saw your yellow river I burst into laugh because this came to my mind instantly.

Quote from Little Rocker

I can see the benefits of your approach, but I wonder whether Epicurus builds a bit more content into the prolepsis than that. It seems to me like the prolepsis for the gods in Letter to Menoeceus 123-4 is that 1) they exist and that 2) they are 'blessed and indestructible,' which offers at least some kind of skeletal conceptual structure.

I don't think what you're describing as 'the prolepsis for the gods' above is the Epicurean prolepsis. It's already active reasoning based on prolepsis. I'll try to explain it the best I can (while simultaneously pretending I know what I'm talking about, which might not be the case).

The criteria of truth (sensations, anticipations and feelings) are all automatic and passive - independent of our will. Our mind, having active ability to reason, can take these passive criteria and work out more and more general properties of things (even if those things can be only indirectly reasoned about - like the gods above). That's why Cassius' explanation that the prolepsis can't provide any conclusions seems to be correct. Conclusions of any nature are the result of active reasoning of the mind.

I hope I got this right but I probably should have gone back and refresh my knowledge on Epicurean induction first. No guarantees, but maybe that can help a bit.

Quote from Kalosyni

I was wondering what would happen if something went wrong with a launch on a mission heading to the space station, and it accidently sent the rocket out past the proper earth orbit sending them out into the solar system.

In that case I wholeheartedly recommend you watch a film called 'Aniara'. It's a brilliant sci-fi film dealing with exactly that problem. It's not an optimistic film, though.

Quote from Kalosyni

...and whether or not they are supplied with a pill to take in a worst case scenario (lost in space).

Maybe but I guess talking to each other in a similar fashion would probably be much more satisfying way to deal with a problem like that:
- Hey, Joe. I think we're lost.
- Yeah. You may be right, Matt. Let's open the window to make sure.
- Splendid idea, Joe. It's been a pleasure getting lost with you.
- The pleasure is all mine, Matt.

After reading Don's and Cassius' posts I started to suspect there was something wrong with my post #18. And now I think I know what went wrong.

It looks like I made a serious blunder by calling DeWitt a fanboy. By 'fanboy' I meant 'someone who is very enthusiastic' but now after short investigation I realised 'fanboy' is often used in a derogatory way (which I was not aware of). It was absolutely not my intention to offend or ridicule DeWitt and his book. I only wanted to point out that his book should not be taken for granted as it's not always reliable source of information due to his sometimes far-fetched conclusions which are the result of him being very enthusiastic about Epicurus.

English is not my first language so I don't have a perfect command of it and boo-boos like that happen sometimes. I apologise for that. I have edited my post #18 and changed 'fanboy' to 'enthusiast' and have left a short explanation for the change. I would never deliberately belittle anyone who puts hard work in sharing his passions with others and I hope the rest of my post #18 shows clearly that I'm grateful for the work of all the people mentioned there.

Quote from Don

PS: Some may say that I have hubris to even question Usener or Bailey or even DeWitt, and maybe that's true. I would defend myself by saying that I'm not questioning Usener, Bailey, etc al. on a whim. I find a troubling number of their citations lacking in relevance to their assertions.

You're not alone, Don . I think DeWitt's book is a good introductory book that can spark the interest in Epicureanism in people. At least that seems to be the idea behind the book and Dewitt accomplished what he aimed for. However, when someone invests any time in the study of Epicureanism, it becomes very clear very quickly that DeWitt wrote his book not as a scholar but more as an enthusiast [originally I used word 'fanboy' which may suggest derogatory intentions which is not what I intended - TauPhi] of Epicurus. With all due respect to his work, he doesn't seem to have problems drawing conclusions out of thin air to make Epicureanism what he wants Epicureanism to be instead of presenting it for what it was, to the best of available resources.

As far as Bailey and Usener are concerned, their work is not perfect either but I'm very grateful for the amount of work they put in their research and publications.

One way or the other, it's great all these people decided to pursue their interests and now we can benefit from their beautiful, imperfect work and try to make more sense where possible by making our own mistakes on the way. Hubris or no hubris, studying stuff is so much fun, isn't it?

Based on Kalosyni's poster, it looks like this month 20th is Oinoanda themed. Instead of wishing you all a happy one, I'll try to make it a bit happier than happy (for those interested in the inscription).

Please allow me to draw your attention to the article written by Martin Ferguson Smith himself where he meticulously presents last 50 (an then some more) years of the research conducted on the site in Oinoanda. If you decide to take a look, you'll find almost year by year summary of what has been found and what has been published regarding these findings. And to encourage you further, here are two excerpts from the conclusion of this fascinating article. One will make you smile, the other will make you frown.

Quote

The number of fragments discovered has much more than tripled, from 88 to 305, and the quantity of text has more than doubled, from about 3,550 words to about 8,000. The length of the known parts of Diogenes’ inscription is now only slightly less than the combined length of Epicurus’ Letter to Herodotus, Letter to Menoeceus, and Principal Doctrines (Κύριαι Δόξαι) [...] (page 22)

Quote

[...] I cannot help feeling some disappointment at the continuing lack of a major programme of excavation, clearing, and restoration. If such an operation were to be carried out, it would probably at least double the extent of the known text, and, although it would certainly present challenges, these would be much easier to surmount than any at Herculaneum, for Oinoanda is an uninhabited site, and, as the excavation in 1997 confirmed, the hidden treasure lies at no great depth. (page 22)

The article is publicly available in full at MFS website (starts at page 6):
http://www.martinfergusonsmith.com/pdf/CRONACHEERCOLANES.pdf

I don't think we are going to reach an agreement regarding the nature of the gods and I don't think it matters, to be honest, as we are just people speculating about something way above our pay grade.

I just want to clarify that it was never my intention to eliminate gods from Epicureanism. The gods are integral and significant part of the philosophy. I'm first to admit it. I do study Epicurean theology as any other aspect of the philosophy but to my current knowledge, that aspect seems to be a weak link in the philosophy and I am definitely not going to pretend that emulation of gods is a viable option FOR ME just because Epicurus said so. I find insistence on emulation of unknown as dangerous as following any other gods people came up with through the history of mankind.

I hope I'm perfectly clear that it's my own personal stance on the topic and every conversation I'm involved in on this forum regarding gods is only my attempt to get some clarification and further study. I'm not interested in trying to convince anyone of anything I know very little about. Just in case someone gets the wrong impression that I'm against Epicureanism - I'm not. I find it fascinating and useful, most of the time.

All right, I guess you're right about Freddie. I am going to be as rigorous as I possibly can for the remainder of this post. Nobody should worry - there will be enough balloons for now.

Quote from Cassius

Letter to Menoeceus [123] The things which I used unceasingly to commend to you, these do and practice, considering them to be the first principles of the good life. First of all believe that god is a being immortal and blessed, even as the common idea of a god is engraved on men’s minds, and do not assign to him anything alien to his incorruption or ill-suited to his blessedness: but believe about him everything that can uphold his blessedness and incorruption.

If the gods are incorruptible that means they cannot be corrupted. That also mean they do not have to act to maintain their blessedness as it cannot be taken from them. They are immortal. And since only atoms, void and the universe as a placeholder for them are eternal and cannot be corrupted, thanks to the Epicurean gods we can kiss Epicurean atomism bye, bye.

If the gods have to act to maintain their blessedness so we can emulate their work, that means they are corruptible. It also means they are not perfectly blessed as they have at least one worry on their minds all the time: Do not forget to act or you'll go poof.

Even if someone can explain to me how incorruptibility and blessedness can be married with atomism (for which I would be eternally grateful, so to speak) I'd still have to ask: How are we supposed to emulate incorruptibility and blessedness? How is it not asking a gnat to start juggling with bowling pins?

So, until someone shows me a way out, by rigorously applying the viewpoint that some things are possible and some things are not possible in our universe, I must conclude that Epicurean gods are the latter.

Thanks Cassius. I don't have issues with the possibility of existence of more advanced species in the universe. If someone asked me to make a bet I'd put my money that such species are out there. I even wouldn't be surprised to find out that some of these species figured out a way to considerably extend their lives and they make the best out of their lives. And I'm all on board with exploration of the universe outside of our planet to the best of our abilities. The same goes with the exploration of the subatomic realm.

My issue is with the emulation of gods as suggested in Epicureanism. To emulate anything we at the very least need to be exposed to it to have a vague idea of what we are supposed to be emulating. The only exposure in Epicureanism I'm aware of is 'eidola' and that is nothing more that: 'Hey, I imagined something so it must be true. From now on I will emulate it.' And with that approach I can only hope nobody starts imagining Freddie Kruger in a birthday balloon shop.

Quote from Cassius

In emulating the gods, we would not only be emulating a *result*, but one aspect of that role model that we would be emulating comes in realizing that the gods, just like us, must act to maintain their blessedness. This would help stengthen the usefulness of the suggestion that the gods are objects of emulation -- Epicurus would be suggesting that we not only emulate them in result, but that we are emulation the act of working to sustain blessedness. I agree with DeWitt's suggestion that this would be a logical extension of Epicurus' theories about the gods.

So the gods, who live in intermundia do not and cannot interact with us. We on the other hand, cannot and do not interact with them. Both species live entirely disconnected lives under completely different circumstances and yet we are supposed to be emulating the gods. It's like asking a gnat to start juggling with bowling pins.

And how realization that the gods must act to maintain blessedness is supposed to have any effect of humans? We need to act to live blessed lives regardless of what gods supposedly do or don't do.

I know I'm usually harsh as far as Epicurean theology is concerned, but I'm raising this points with good intentions as I'm still trying to understand and find a logical connection between this aspect of Epicureanism and the rest of the philosophy.

Quote from Cassius

A ha! A major confession! Tau Phi is not a LISTMAKER!

I begin over the years to think that some form of habit of listmaking or outlining is a requirement of being a "good Epicurean!"

Haha. I'm caught red-handed. Thank intermundian god I'm not an Epicurean, good or otherwise.

Now, however, I'm fully dedicated to 'Things I Forgot While Shopping' list which probably promotes me to a little more Epicurean but also a little more twisting the knife in my own wound person. I call it a good Saturday.

Quote from Julia

One of the few pieces of writing which tend to describe absolute truths is my Things I Forgot While Shopping list ).

Firstly, I'm stealing this line from you.

Secondly, I'm laughing at it as I was forced to drink unsweetened tea this morning because I'd forgotten to buy some honey yesterday. I guess making shopping lists wouldn't be the worst idea in the world. Yet, my perverse, introspective mind likes 'Things I Forgot While Shopping' list so much better.

I'm starting to doubt if having conscious, introspective mind is worth it. If I were an ancient Greek at least I could hope for uncontrolled, non-introspective flood of the honey 'eidola' at the right time (that is while shopping in ancient supermarkets, of course). But no, my stupid, 21st century mind was distracted with thoughts like: Why on Earth two 250g bags of nuts are cheaper than one 500g bag of the same nuts? That's nuts! (Yep, I'm that infantile and my 40-someting-year-old mind made me laugh at this. Again.)

Very interesting post Julia . Thank you.

It reminded me about a book I meant to read but never had. I can't vouch for it as the theory presented there is highly speculative and hasn't been really put to any reliable tests, (to my knowledge - I might be wrong as I'm writing without any recent research on the topic), but based on your post I'm guessing you might want to check it out, if you're unfamiliar with it.

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I can't point out any errors as I don't know any Greek but I certainly can point out that this is a great effort. My little Epicurean library just got a little bigger. Thank you very much Bryan

Quote from Little Rocker

Donkeys are amazing! And they also avoid politics!

And there's at least one donkey who actively contributed to Epicureanism. His name is Feridun and he stars in a beautiful documentary on Diogenes of Oinoanda.

If one has half an hour to spare, I highly recommend watching the documentary to see the actual place of the inscription and listen to one of the unsung heroes of Epicureanism - Prof. Martin Ferguson Smith.

When I was checking the sources mentioned in that translation, I learnt two things that may be of interest to someone:

1) The source of the image is available on archive.org and there's a lot of additional good stuff there (in German):

Sitzungsberichte Der Koniglich Preussischen Akademie Der Wissenschafte : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Erster Halbband. Januar bis Juni (Acc. No. 26838); Zweiter Halbband. Juli bis December (Acc. No. 26839)

archive.org

2) C. W. Chilton (mentioned on that webpage) also wrote: Diogenes of Oenoanda, The Fragments. A Translation and Commentary. Both in Latin and English. I guess there are new fragments available since the date of the publication (1971) but I thought I would mention this work just in case.

Bryan You mentioned you were looking for an English translation. Take a look here. I hope it helps.

Laudator Temporis Acti: P. Oxy. 215

Quote from Cassius

I think that is an excellent point and it is where I (intuitively) think Epicurus is coming from.

You don't need to rely on intuition in this case. Epicurus deviated from Democritean physics by limiting the variety of atoms. By doing this he automatically put a stop to 'anything goes' universe.

Quote from Cassius

In addition, we have no reason to think, and therefore we should not think, that there are "other universes" in which there are an infinitely larger number of infinite types of atoms that do in fact create an "anything goes" environment.

I disagree. We should think about everything we are capable of imagining. Almost all of these ideas will be proven wrong but by thinking about everything we can think of, at least we give ourselves a chance of coming up with something brilliant.

Quote from Cassius

So what IS this guy's point?

In the quotation you provided, it is clear that this guy makes up arguments as he goes to support his point which can be challenged by a five-years-old.

... It is discovered that the universe is finite? Really? By whom?
... Materialist naturalism is crumbing? Really? Where besides this guy's own mind?
... Improbability of the miracle that is life... Right. That explains everything. Let's go with miracles, unicorns and rainbows. That approach is so much better than putting effort in studying our surroundings.

My initial thoughts. I didn't spend any time validating them so feel free to correct me as I probably got some of the stuff wrong.

Quote from Cassius

So as I understand this issue in Epicurean terms, certain things are possible, and others are impossible, no matter how much time or space are involved. Donating an infinitely large number of typewriters to an infinitely large number monkeys for an infinite time will NEVER produce the complete works of Shakespeare.

The example with the monkeys doesn't illustrate the claim preceding the example. In our universe we don't have infinity of possible creations. As far as matter is concerned, the variety of atoms is strictly limited by universal laws governing the universe. Since we have limited building blocks types and constrains in the form of universal laws which have to be obeyed, the universe is not a place where anything goes.
The monkey example has no restrictions and non-zero chance under unrestricted conditions changes to certainty occurring infinite numbers of times.

Quote from Cassius

So I would think that the "chances" of repetition of things that we know to exist is far greater than the chance of occurrence of things that we intuitively grasp have never existed in our experience

That sentence is true only if we talk about possible things in the universe which is finite and lasts for finite amount of time. In infinite universe the chances of occurrence of possible things whether known or unknown to us is the same and it's infinite.