Posts by TauPhi

I've listened to the latest one on YouTube without any problems and firstly, it's a very good one. Thanks Joshua and Cassius . Secondly, it's great that you utilize that platform. I'm sure the podcast will reach much broader audience now.

Well, I thought, why not to check the remaining two as well?

I didn't see anything wrong with the canonics one.

Physics one is my favourite of the three but I have few suggestions:

- there are two very similar questions about these topics: shapes of the atoms, the swerve, and nature of atomic motion - please consider removing 3 repetitive ones

- in the question about the number of different shapes of the atoms (the first one on the topic) two answers may be correct: 'uncountable' is set as the correct one but I don't see how 'finite' is wrong

- in question 12 (if I remember correctly) there's a typo in one of the answers. 'atoms and either' probably should be 'atoms and ether'

I checked out the Ethics one. My suggestions/observations:

- in question about fears change 'which irrational fears' to '... fear(s)'. Otherwise you already suggest more than one fear which makes majority of options apparently incorrect

- there are 2 questions in a row about categories of desires which are almost identical

- these are followed by another asking about how many categories there are. The correct answer is set to 4. If I'm wrong, ignore this one, but I always thought there are 3: natural and necessary, natural but unnecessary and empty ones

Quote from Bryan

We have Epicurus' words on the issue. Epicurus tells us exactly what the anticipations are in PD 24:

Quote from Cassius

Lining the two sources up like that is a reminder of DeWitt's view that the reference to "the Epicureans generally" adding a fourth criteria was arguably a mistake.

These two comments makes me realise I may understand less about Epicurean criteria of truth than I previously thought... and previously I thought: 'Damn, what did those crazy Epicureans smoke?'

Bryan , can you explain why do you think PD 24 is about anticipations? To me, it is about every criteria of truth except anticipations. The way I see it, it's about all momentary (that is right here, right now) criteria: senses, feelings and image perceptions of the mind. Anticipations are different to these because they are not only 'right here, right now'. They are lasting (they create permanent mental imprints).

For that reason, I don't think the fourth criterion is a mistake. It's linked with other 'momentary' criteria and it serves similar function there to 'properties' and 'accidents' which are linked with 'permanent' anticipations.

Please don't hesitate and point out flaws in my thinking as I really would like to confidently say one day: 'Hey, I get it now. Those Epicureans were not as crazy as I thought.'

What follows is an excerpt from a publication from 1923 by my favourite Epicurean scholar Adam Krokiewicz. It comes from a journal called 'Przegląd Humanistyczny'. I did my best to translate it as accurately as possible and provided some comments to make it easier to digest as the fragment is rather dense. For the sake of completeness, I also attached the original text in Polish and left the source information at the bottom. I hope it helps with the discussion on prolepsis and images.

[*] TauPhi's clarification (might not be precise): Accidents and attributes are understood as philosophical concepts:
accidents - secondary characteristics that are not essential to a thing's identity and may change over time.
attributes - characteristics or qualities associated with a particular substance (substance understood as an essential quality that make up the core of an object or thing, and is often used to refer to physical matter). Attributes can be both physical or non-physical in nature.

Please see more detailed explanation here: https://www.philosophos.org/metaphysical-t…ssence-accident

Original text and source:
"Epikur rozróżniał trzy kryterja prawdy, wrażenia - αἰσθἡσεις, wyobrażenia typowe - προλἡψεις i uczucia - πάθη, tudzież dwie zdolności podmiotu poznającego, a mianowicie bierną - postrzegania, względnie czucia na bodźce zewnętrzne, i czynną - rozumowania. Trzy kryterja Epikura przedstawiają trzy automatyczne i bierne, trzy niezależne od woli ludzkiej rezultaty bodźców zewnętrznych, czyli wizerunków - εἰδωλα, przyczem wrażenia i uczucia mają charakter momentalnej teraźniejszości w przeciwieństwie do trwałych wyobrażeń typowych. Trwałym wyobrażeniom typowym odpowiadają ze względu na moment teraźniejszości tak zwane przynależności - τά συμβεβηκότα i przypadłości - τά συμπτὠματα, mające swoiste narzuty, w gruncie rzeczy takie same wizerunkowe narzuty umysłu - φανταστικαὶ ἐπιβολαὶ τῇς διανοίας, jakie mają doraźne wrażenia i uczucia. Świadoma i poznawcza wola ludzka nawiązuje dopiero do wyobrażeń typowych, utrwalonych w nazwach zewnętrznych przedmiotów, działających swemi wizerunkami na zmysły i umysł człowieka. Umysł ludzki może dzięki swej czynnej zdolności rozumowania uświadomić sobie na podstawie nazw i związanych z niemi wyobrażeń typowych przypadłości poszczególnych przedmiotów, wyłuskać z nich na mocy obserwacji - περίπτωσις, ustosunkowania - ἀναλογία, podobieństwa - ὁμοιότης i związku - σύνθεσις rodzajowe, coraz to ogólniejsze przynależności owych przedmiotów i w ten sposób poznać obok ich zasadniczo niejawnej natury - φύσις, która się składa z przynależności, także ich do czasu niejawną przypadłość generalną i nieuchronną, naprzykład to, że człowiek, jako człowiek, jest śmiertelnym. Na opisanym przebiegu rozumowania polega tak zwana indukcja epikurejska."

SOURCE: Adam Krokiewicz 'O szczęściu epikurejskim' - Przegląd Humanistyczny Year II; Volumes I and II; 1-6.1923; pages 260-261

Quote from Cassius

what is even more certainly true is that having a "sense of humor" (and having the good sense to know when humor is appropriate and when it is not") ought to be considered an essential requirement in participating in an Epicurean community.

Cicero, De Natura Deorum, 2.17.46: Hic quam volet Epicurus iocetur, homo non aptissimus ad iocandum – minimeque resipiens patriam.

Epicurus may make a joke of this if he likes, although humor was never his strong point – an Athenian without the "Attic salt!"

Sense of humour should be strictly prohibited! Laughter makes faces wrinkle, bellies hurt and moods swing. And it's contagious. Now excuse me, I have to go back to my serious life. I have to drag myself to yet another pointless walk and get tired again and listen to those annoying birds chirping and having this awful summer breeze in my wrinkleless face. Ahhh, Wednesdays.

Phillip Mitsis (ed.) - Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism (2020)

I learned a lot from this one. It's one of the first I've read on Epicureanism and I definitely don't regret it. It's not about practical application of the philosophy but it's very informative on Epicureanism as a philosophy and it covers pretty much all aspects of it.

Simple and effective; informative but not overwhelming; visually attractive without any bloat. I love it Cassius . Brilliantly done.

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.