Posts by Novem

"In philosophy of science and in epistemology, instrumentalism is a methodological view that ideas are useful instruments, and that the worth of an idea is based on how effective it is in explaining and predicting natural phenomena. According to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known either true or false about nature's unobservable objects, properties or processes.[1] Scientific theory is merely a tool whereby humans predict observations in a particular domain of nature by formulating laws, which state or summarize regularities, while theories themselves do not reveal supposedly hidden aspects of nature that somehow explain these laws.[2] Instrumentalism is a perspective originally introduced by Pierre Duhem in 1906.[2]

Rejecting scientific realism's ambitions to uncover metaphysical truth about nature,[2] instrumentalism is usually categorized as an antirealism, although its mere lack of commitment to scientific theory's realism can be termed nonrealism. Instrumentalism merely bypasses debate concerning whether, for example, a particle spoken about in particle physics is a discrete entity enjoying individual existence, or is an excitation mode of a region of a field, or is something else altogether.[3][4][5] Instrumentalism holds that theoretical terms need only be useful to predict the phenomena, the observed outcomes."

I suppose many people's views here fall under this philosophy of science? It's also Epicurean to study nature - do science - for our own benefit as it reduces uncertainty and anxiety and gives us peace of mind and pleasure with that knowledge. That's an instrumental view of science.

And that we are pragmatic when it comes to metaphysical or epistemic certainty and skepticism - accept or reject/revise a scientific claim/model/theory when evidence confirms or fails to confirm beyond a reasonable doubt - like in Martin's article. Otherwise we really cannot live our lives if we are paralyzed by extreme skepticism or by trying and theorize and rationalize our way through without testing to see if those rationalizations have merit.

Has anyone identified as Epicurean in official surveys when asked by a pollster? Even the Census?

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to all!

Quote from Cassius

Yes it is - I don't know who Alex O'Conner is .... familiar with him?

Yes. He has a YouTube channel and a podcast called "Within Reason". Lots of interesting topics in his podcasts to listen to for a couple of hours or so.

Youtube

This the Dawkins-Peterson debate mediated by Alex O'Connor.

Happy Birthday Kalosyni and Joshua!

Happy Birthday!

I was reading this Sedley article on Epicurean theological innatism, which argues that the prolepsis of gods is universal and innate to all humans. I think there is a strong parallel there to Jungian collective unconsciousness.

Added a section on Epicurean theology and spirituality.

Quote from Joshua

Polyenphysiszodeism.

Innumerable gods who are living beings and have their existence entirely in nature, but stand aloof from human affairs.

I hold a copyright on that term!

Poly - many

En - Within

Physis - Nature

Zo - animal or living being

Deism - god(s), and non-interventionist at that

Great -ism, Joshua!

What would be the closest term to describe Epicurean gods? Naturalistic deism?

They are defined as higher beings relative to human beings that can live far longer or effectively forever with a way to replenish their bodies and who live pleasurably and virtuously, and that they live in the space between the worlds and are concerned with maintaining their own pleasure and avoid interfering with lesser beings as they are preoccupied with their own self-preservation and may suffer from pain if they do interfere. Humans, mortal beings, can experience an approximate"divinity" of the higher beings by living as Epicurean sages.

The term "god" has a heavy connotation and I am inclined to use "higher being" to get away from that, but I feel like that is underwhelming the point of them.

I found this term: ietsist -- "It is a Dutch term for a range of beliefs held by people who, on the one hand, inwardly suspect – or indeed believe – that "there must be something undefined beyond the mundane which can be known or proven", but on the other hand do not accept or subscribe to an established view of the nature of a deity offered by any particular religion." - From the Wikipedia article. But we are putting forth an idea of the gods rather than this weak agnostic theism.

I also got the book recently and read the intro and the first two chapters. I can see this not only touching upon political philosophy but also meta ethics. Ultimately a type of naturalism/realism with a strong element of subjectivism/relativism. It's kind of hard to fully describe it our modern philosophical terms. There's another book published this year that goes into Epicurean justice.

Also going through the podcast's episodes on the New Virtues chapter and the topic of justice will be interesting to compare.

I added a subsection outline on Epicurean political theory based on what I am gleaning and skimming from the Theory and Practice book.

Novem’s Outline of Epicurean Philosophy

1. The Nature of the Universe – Metaphysics and Physics
   1. The universe consists of natural, physical, material bodies and empty space; bodies-in-motion and void.
   2. Nothing comes from nothing or goes to nothing; something comes from something or goes to something else; matter cannot be destroyed nor created and is eternal.
   3. The universe is large and vast, far beyond our current comprehension, and is effectively infinite, and very well may be infinite, full of a variety of different bodies and material conglomerations.
   4. These bodies-in-motion are governed by natural, physical laws. They also have permanent and emergent properties. Permanent properties endure no matter if a body is independent of another body or is conjoined with another; emergent properties are dependent on the conjoining of two or more bodies.
   5. Supernaturalism cannot exist in this universe nor exist outside of it. Supernatural gods and powers cannot exist, and if there are natural “gods” of our universe, they do not interfere in, or are moved by, mortal affairs.
   6. The first principles of practical philosophy are dependent on the scientific study of the natural world.
2. The Nature of Knowledge – Epistemology or Canonics
   1. Our intellect, consisting of the critical/volitional aspect and the intuitive/automatic aspect, depends on three methods of acquiring and judging information of the external world: sensations, anticipations, and feelings.
   2. These three methods are not totally separable from each other. There is a reliance on deductive and inductive reasoning.
   3. Sensations – the Five Senses
      1. We constantly glean sense-data from the external world around us. They consist of touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing.
      2. Sense-data is honestly reported to our intellect, but its quality may be judged and subject to revision.
      3. Each sense provides its own type of information to the intellect.
      4. Each sense may have quality issues, for example, one needing to wear glasses to see faraway objects better.
   4. Anticipations – Instincts and Predispositions
      1. We have innate, natural predispositions that are part of being a sentient, conscious being.
      2. This includes our inherited, evolutionary instincts like primal fears and joys, language capabilities, and our sense of fairness. These we are born with, and they are refined and developed as we go through social life.
      3. This also includes empirical predispositions or models of objects or situations that we have triggered and solidified by experience. We summon these in our mind when the outside world triggers the memory of the object or situation.
      4. Essentially, we have a faculty of pattern recognition that constantly makes predictions and associations of concrete and abstract objects and concepts.
   5. Feelings – Emotions, Passions, Fears, and Desires.
      1. The feeling of pleasure is our information on positive conscious experiences.
      2. The feeling of pain is our information on negative conscious experiences.
      3. Pleasure is informing our intellect what things are good things to pursue and pain is informing our intellect what things should be avoided. We may outwardly express pleasure and pain through emotions and passions, such as through joy, delight, anger, and sadness.
      4. There are the mental pleasures (anticipatory/recollective and realized pleasures) and mental pains (anticipatory/recollective and realized pains).
      5. There are bodily pleasures and pains, depending on the somatic responses of the body to certain stimuli.
      6. Desires are wanted states of affairs that have pleasure in their anticipation/recollection and in their realization. Fears are unwanted states of affairs that are painful in their anticipation/recollection and in their realization.
   6. Reason is dependent on the senses, anticipations, and feelings.
3. The Nature of Living – Ethics
   1. Psychological/Methodological Hedonism
      1. Given that pleasure consists of the positive conscious experiences, and pain consists of the negative conscious experiences, and we have constant information flows of both throughout our life, we analyze what pleasures to pursue and what pains to avoid.
      2. This calculus includes forgoing certain pleasures that may lead to greater pain in the short or long terms. This also includes enduring certain pains to avoid greater pains or achieve greater pleasures.
      3. We individually calculate and assess pleasures and pains to maximize our personal pleasure and minimize our personal pains. We can make reasonable assumptions and generalizations about others’ pleasures and pains, but we must have epistemic humility when making these assessments.
      4. Life is feeling pleasure and pain while death is not feeling pleasure and pains. We should not fear death because we will not be feeling pain or missing out on pleasure.
   2. Desires-in-Living
      1. There are three types of desires we have in life:
         1. Natural and necessary (the natural) desires – basic material and economic security and friendship.
         2. Natural but unnecessary (the extravagant) desires – the nice enhancements in life that we find in life by accident or by occasion.
         3. Unnatural and unnecessary (the corrosive) desires – the certain aims of life that are very taxing on oneself and can very easily make one a slave to them, like ambition, power, greed, and fame. While some may achieve great ambitions, power, wealth, and fame without giving into these corrosive desires, it is a very difficult balancing act.
   3. Instrumentalist Virtue Ethics
      1. Virtues are generalized habits and behaviors that lead to pleasure via embracing the natural desires and avoiding the corrosive desires. Vices are generalized habits and behaviors that lead to pain via overlooking the natural desires and embracing the corrosive desires. Acting in line with virtues will lead us to a pleasurable life. Acting viciously will lead us to a life of pain.
      2. There are several virtues, but the primary ones in Epicurean/Classical Greco-Roman philosophy are:
         1. Prudence – act with prior planning and consideration.
         2. Justice – act fairly with others and follow common social norms and rules.
         3. Courage – act confidently in the face of adversity and respond without fear or intimidation.
         4. Moderation – act without extremes of one way or another and consider all sides of a given issue.
      3. While vices are not explicitly mentioned in many places in Epicurean philosophy (and I like having the opposite cases presented), they include:
         1. Recklessness and folly – acting without prior planning and consideration.
         2. Injustice – acting unfairly with others and breaking common social rules and norms.
         3. Cowardice – acting without confidence and allowing oneself to respond with fear and intimidation.
         4. Extremism – acting one way to its maximum without consideration of the other sides of a given issue.
   4. Politics and Justice
      1. The concept of justice, like war and peace, is a relational property among humans (who are bodies with the permanent properties of humanness).
      2. The basis of Justice arose from the desire for friendship among humans, and the principle of mutual non-harm became the main governing principle of the first human group relationships. The development of language helped evolve human groupings towards civilizations, which became more complex compared to the mutual non-harm principle.
      3. Even though Justice is a relational property, it is still very real. The concept of justice in a society may change over time but contains enduring elements. The concept of justice in a society is disseminated via socialization, people interacting with each other.
      4. Justice is a preconception/prolepsis, a canon/norm/measurement of knowledge. We use it to judge whether the proposed act contributes to the mutual non-harm to everyone involved in the social pact. Injustice is when the proposed act does not contribute to that mutual non-harm in the social pact.
      5. Time, geography, and historical context cause the social facts to change, which impacts how the preconception of Justice will identify what is Just and what is Unjust, past and present.
      6. Laws and sanctions arose from the need to address the issues caused by the complexity of evolved human civilizations, where human relations moved from the basic mutual non-harm principle. Laws and sanctions help maintain the security of the whole and the preconception of Justice of society at the time.
      7. The purest security one can find for oneself in complex social and political life is friendship, charity, and satisfying the natural and necessary desires. This contributes to the security of the whole.
      8. Pursuit of political and public careers should be carefully assessed by one's hedonic calculus to see if it is worth it for themselves and their friends. Sometimes it is better to live unnoticed.
   5. The Nature of the Gods and the Divine – Theology
      1. Theistic or theological innatism/nativism
         1. All humans have a predisposition (prolepsis) of awe, wonder, sacredness, blessedness, and divinity of our world and the greater universe, and this includes feeling “something out there,” or being part of something greater than our individual selves. So, it is possible that there are other beings in the universe like mortal selves, and that there might be higher beings in the universe, that can avoid or minimize the mortality we see in human life.
         2. This predisposition is innate and apparently shared by others in the world; we see many parallels of awe, wonder, sacredness, blessedness, and divinity in cultures around the world. We also have shared and similar archetypes of blessed, higher beings.
         3. These higher beings live blessed lives, far beyond the regular toil and pain that mortals live, and can even live far longer than mortals, perhaps even live forever.
      2. Materialistic or naturalistic polydeism
         1. These higher beings live in our natural universe and are subject to its laws.
         2. We could call these beings as “superhuman,” as they could possess characteristics that are beyond current human capabilities and traits, but not so much beyond humans that they are beyond nature. We could also call them "gods" for convenience and that they could things far beyond what ordinary humans could do.
         3. They could achieve very long lifespans, or even deathlessness in their material bodies. They must maintain this somehow, just like ordinary humans take care of themselves, mentally and bodily, to live better and longer lives.
         4. Given the infinity of the universe, and the variety of material bodies that can emerge, we see a variety and gradation of these higher beings.
         5. Given this preoccupation with self-preservation, these higher beings are likely to avoid places in the universe where they could lose that self-preservation. They also did not create the universe, nor will destroy it.
         6. They also live very well to the point of experiencing great tranquility and pleasure in their minds, and they would likely seek out and live with like-minded higher beings, which could also help with their self-preservation.
         7. These blessed, higher beings are exemplars of living happy, virtuous lives, something that lesser beings can strive to imitate and approach a level towards this divine blessedness.
         8. Even our predisposition towards divinity and wonder helps us strive to live better lives, no matter if we will ever encounter these higher beings.
      3. Spiritual/religious naturalism
         1. This natural universe is the only one we live in, and so to live better lives, we must better understand it and respect its limits, as we are also part of the natural universe.
         2. Understanding this natural universe helps us draw lessons from it to inform our personal lives--Epicurean philosophy is a "natural philosophy" or a "physiology" (to be somewhat closer to the Classical Greek understanding).
         3. Philosophy must be practical and beneficial to the human experience and mentality, just like medicine, diet, and exercise are to the human body. Healthy minds and bodies via a healthy philosophy lead to a healthy life. The human body and mind are finite and tied together; many things in the human condition are about psychosomatic health.
         4. Our friends and family are natural communities of fellowship that guide and shape our personal lives. We form friendships with our parents and strangers to enhance our personal security, which includes material comforts but also a sense of belonging.
         5. We also analyze our higher, sacred values with our personal hedonic calculus, so we sacrifice things (or make them sacred in the pursuit of higher values), like our present pleasure by enduring a present pain, because we believe we will get a future pleasure of achieving that higher value.
         6. Other things claiming sacredness, like revealed supernatural religions, can lead to greater pains later down the road if pursued as they value things that can harm many others, and us, for no real benefit. We must judge certain established religious practices and beliefs with our hedonic calculus. Typically, supernatural religion does frequently lead to a lot of harm by inspiring others with vindictive deities that must be pleased or otherwise incur their wrath.

Here is a quick overview of his views and possible book recommendations. 

For those interested.

I've started to reincorporate carbs back into my diet after years of trying to do super low-carb high-protein/fat diet, but I am mindful of what carbs I consume. Bringing back carbs has helped me lose weight I think because my cells have that energy they can easily use at first and a calorie deficit overall to let them dig into my fat stores. I've also gone vegetarian and embraced plant protein and that has helped me lose weight. I avoid some highly processed carbs and plant protein sources, and I eat pasture-raised eggs. I still do eat some low-carb items like zero-carb wraps because they are lower in calories overall and the high fiber helps regulate hunger and carbs too.

I love that Substack is being embraced here. I use Substack for news and social/philosophical commentary. I see some Stoic ones, like Massimo Pigliucci, and I saw that Hiram has one as well for his brand of Epicureanism. Greek philosophy is making a comeback.

I found this thread on Caesar, for additional reference on the other side of the civil war.

I'm also interested to see how Epicureans thought of the Roman Republic and their commentary on Roman politics as something to add to Epicurean sociopolitical thought, like with Philodemus' "On the Good King" which highlights Epicurean virtues for a statesman.

In the sub-section of the Criterion of Truth, under the Epistemology section, there is talk of a fourth criterion of truth as the "presentational applications of the mind," which is claimed to be an addition of later Epicureans. What are some great first-hand sources or academic second-hand discussions on this fourth criterion? An extension of prolepsis?

Happy Birthday!