Posts by DaveT

Quote from Cassius

I see mostly regression from 2000 years ago, and in order to deal with that regression we need to focus on where things went wrong and how applying core Epicurean attitudes could redress those problems.

I understand your point of view. On the other hand I see progress away from the monarchical God and church appointed governments of the last 250 years. No longer do we accept conquest in the name of god's command to subjugate the earth.

I think there is something to be said about a focus on the secular adaptation of Epicurean principles that have made their way into common society, into academia and medicine as well as government policies even though those principles are not often recognized as Epicurean.

One might call this raw hedonic calculus, if I follow you, but it is still moving away from mythology in practice accross Europe and North America. Most PEW polling shows the decline of popular participation in religious organizations. It seems to me this is to the good, even if people haven't fully broken with their all-to-human fear of displeasing an unprovable divinity, believing in Astrology, having their palms read and fearing ghosts.

On your point of searching for a way to deal with newer people, I'm guessing you mean newer to the Forum. I've heard that the way to engage with others is to ask those people, who they are in real life, why they joined, what their goals are at the Forum, and perhaps when they might have the time to participate. I think those questions can be asked tactfully, not just to new people, but perhaps they might become a part of an annual discussion among the membership.

Quote from Cassius

I suspect that you are neither and that's why you think it's ok to go right to ethics

Cassius, your suspicion is quite incorrect as well as your conclusion. I do think my posts relating to Sedley's interpretations, indeed Lucretius' interpretations and arguments of Epicurus' beliefs need to be balanced and kept in context much better.

For instance, to say: "That's why this discussion is important. Epicurus is discussing the limits and boundaries of properties of atoms and the qualities that emerge from combinations of atoms. All of this directly refutes the idea that human life is either chaotic or determined supernaturally." (Underlining added)

I don't agree that it directly refutes either the chaotic nature or the supernaturally determined nature of human life. It is an argument against supernaturalism and chaos, but it is just that, a reasonable argument, rather than a refutation.

Please see my further comment below.

Quote from Cassius

These are the issues we are really talking about and that Epicurus is addressing. Epicurus could care less whether we call fundamental particles atoms or protons or neurons or quarks or anything else, and I think if he were here today those who focus on that perspective are in fact lost and will never see the bigger picture until they back up and decide philosophically what "reality" really means.

Cassius, in the spirit of Epicurean frankness, I hope you are not suggesting that perhaps I am lost on account of my opinion. Indeed, I think I see the bigger picture, even if it differs from someone else’s field of study and opinion. Perhaps there is a failure to communicate here. And I am willing to consider that part of the problem is my failure to write more clearly.

But to your quote: It is quite clear to me, as you have responded more than once, that Epicurus’ physics is a foundation for leading people away from mythology and divine Providence and using our human nature to achieve happiness. Anyone who thinks physics or ancient metaphysics are separate and apart from philosophy would be mistaken. I think we agree there.

I think it would be a better course to maximize Epicurus’ reasons for his physics and minimize the study of the details for the average student, like me.

To repeat my earlier comment in this thread, I find the deep study of his physics more historically valuable than practically useful to a philosophically based lifestyle. And here is the crux of my comments; at the same time, our exposure to and study of modern science are essential to the individual practice of Epicurus’ overall philosophy.

Quote from Cassius

Sedley's argument is that Epicurus was not a strict reductionist: he did not say that your feelings of pleasure and pain, your lived experience, your psychological states are "mere illusions" that dissolve into atomic physics if you look closely enough. The qualities of compound things — including the pleasure and pain we feel — are real, not eliminable, and must be understood at their own level. That is philosophically powerful ammunition against the modern dismissal of Epicurean ethics as "merely subjective" or "just brain chemistry."

Please explain how: "That is philosophically powerful ammunition against the modern dismissal ....as 'merely subjective'". Doesn't each person experience those things based on their own subjective physical and mental state?

Also, please explain how "just brain chemistry" varies from the Epicurus' methods and conclusions exploring those human experiences. I have trouble seeing it as a dismissal of Epicurus. The question of chemistry affecting free will to some degree Is being examined and tested. Therefore, the possibilities of chemistry partly explaining free will seems consistent with Eplicurus' methodology of reductionistic and antireductionistic logic.

Sorry I missed the discussion on this topic since my observation may already have been raised and answered.

Why should interpretations of Epicurus' thinking on atoms, that is, whether he was either or both a reductionist and/or an anti reductionist, be relevant to modern practice of Epicurean lifestyle? Compared to modern discoveries, albeit they stand on Epicurus' intuitions about atoms, his explanations of atoms and void are rather simplistic.

I don't question that this topic is a worthy one among historians of Epicurus' teachings. However, the study of reality arising from perceived nature, and logically intuited unseen nature, as Epicurus demanded, seems to point us beyond the history if we want to live a happy life grounded in reality and not mythology.

For me, the advances in physics over the last 100 years have led to modern scientific discoveries that further advance what Epicurus encouraged.

Cassius I respect your inclinations and wouldn't try to change your thoughts on widening the issue of a Stoic vs Epicurean duty to engage. As you confirmed, I think there is little likelihood to gain agreement between debaters, and frankly why should there be? And that is why I'm not suggesting personality driven debate to the public at large. That becomes two men of a certain age nit picking each other's belief's. My thinking was that a scholarly debate read in an academic journal, might raise the misstated issues by Pigliucci to professionals in the field. Any one of those who may better understand Epicurus though your forceful review of Pigliucci becomes a force multiplier so to speak toward your goal of clearing up misconceptions of Epicurean foundations.

Once again, great job!

Cassius Complements on your thorough refutation of Pigliucci's article on the duty to engage among Stoics. I wish you and he could engage in a scholarly journal on issues he asserted and your response. Any ideas on how to initiate something like that?

Quote from Cassius

It's probably also a good way of looking at it to compare this to court.

If we're going to reach a conclusion about something, we have to tell the jury the standard of proof.

Telling them to just decide what's "probably" happened or happened "with a high degree of confidence" isn't what we do, especially in important criminal cases.

Perhaps you might also have discussed that in Civil Law cases where “probably” is acceptable.

In criminal cases, people go to prison. Generally, in civil cases which are far more common, you don't go to prison.

And I am suggesting this clarification because, when we are discussing standards of proof in response to the beginning question of this thread. But sometimes beyond reasonable doubt, like in criminal cases, or probably (more likely than not) like in civil cases, need a lot more clarification when applied to issues we have in this thread.

Proof, whether to support philosophical, scientific, or legal subjects, whether directly or circumstantially arrived at, by consensus or individual logic, must be clearly defined as a basis for discussion. . And not just defined, but also limited in application. Otherwise, when we discuss the ancient debates of Hellenistic philosophers, we can get distracted from the original topic under study in the thread.

I see evidence that Epicurean teachings are far more widespread than many think it to be. Epicurus' name is not attached to the actions and beliefs of people, especially in western, educated, Industrialized, rich, democracies (WEIRD). Just listen to any marketing of medical providers and pharmaceuticals, and you hear reduction of pain and suffering as a goal that can be achieved. The same for psychiatric and counseling practices. There's no grin and bear it there. Listen to mindful presentations and note they teach recognizing the good in yourself and others. There's no demand to achieve certain virtues. Heck, I'll bet money that even preachers forced to preach to dwindling numbers of congregations emphasize compassion and understanding rather than be good and guarantee heaven or face hell. I think the world will give up more classical stoicism and absolutism in practice. By the way, they don't know the basis of those in the ancient Greeks. I see Epicurean beliefs as unstoppable. Without the cudgel of fear of damnation or afterlife, Epicurean thought can't compete head to head with major religions. It carries no threat of irredeemable error for denial of the faith. For that reason, it will continue to grow, slowly, beyond our lifetimes and even then, it can only be expected to be a large influence rather than a monolithic belief system.

Quote from Cassius

Yet it in my view it held and holds the correct answers as to the absence of (1) supernatural forces (2) life after death, (3) absolute standards of virtue. It also presents a practical and logical approach to having confidence in the best way to live in the absence of those fictions.

I get it, your view. I lean more to the side that says I don't believe any of those items are true because I have never seen evidence that they are true. Therefore, since I believe them all to be false, I'm not concerned about the amount of evidence I have to dig up to prove what Epicurus taught is true. If those who believe 1 to 3 above want to believe it, no harm is done to me. Now when it comes to organized religions that preach those items, I see the harm they have done with the power of the fear of disobedience.

Quote from Cassius

The "until there is s a consensus" illustrates the problem of generic references to "modern science" and "the scientific method" and "experts" as if using those phrases actually means anything final. There are only particular experts and scientists and particular assertions of results using any method at any time. Consensus is not a logical goal, especially in ethics, and often is later decided to be wrong.

OK. But surely you don't have a problem with relying on expert opinion and consensus of experts on any specific issue when we as average people have zero ability to know about the topic. We all have to draw the line somewhere on what we believe is true, like your 1 to 3 above, and where we don't believe them to be true. We have to trust expert consensus on specific topics that are far beyond our knowledge when making important decisions. For example, I don't ingest anything that the experts say causes cancer in mice, even though I have no idea if it is possible I'll get cancer, too.

One last point that I think I have to make here. Science and the Scientific Method are distinctly different concepts in common usage and practical applications. Perhaps they are conflated as a result of poor educational systems or force of habit. Conflating the two invites confusion, in my opinion. Throughout the ages Science has eventually and always been shown to be wrong on any topic once better tested ideas came along. The Scientific Method invites and expects that we, as average people and experts in particular, examine any assertion to the best of our ability. This is how we determine whether something is true or false. And always our estimation is based on the best evidence available at the time.

You know, to say, " Consensus is not a logical goal, especially in ethics, and often is later decided to be wrong." is a hard one for me to agree on. Perhaps consensus is not a logical goal in ethics because how to live life well on a daily basis is not individually testable among diverse people. However, consensus on Epicurean general guidelines is testable, and I suggest we arrive at our belief in it by consensus through discussion among friends and comparative study.

Cassius I'm lost! Please see the quotes I attached below and bolded relevant parts. Looking at the beginning of Kalosyni 's post, below, then your reply, and your answer to my question to you for clarification has me lost. Especially the Jefferson quote.

Two points. As you noted I don't think we are far apart, if at all on almost everything. But I've lost the thread of what we are far apart on.

In your response to me, you quoted Thos. Jefferson; is he the modern philosopher you referred to and I asked about? I must not understand your train of thought. I was thinking perhaps you were referring to 20th century philosophers as being somehow out in left field.

Your referral to radical skeptics, has me confused again. Am I wrong to conclude that in your use of those two words, radical skeptics mean the philosophers of ancient Greece BCE? With respect, you seem to have a bone to pick with the skeptics of old and their influence on some. I believe I understand the battle of ideas between the school of Epicurus and the Skeptics with a capital S.

However, I'm not clear if you are referring to ancient Skepticism that has at best only a remote similarity to the modern scientific methods of finding truth only after experimental testing of any concepts of any nature until there is a consensus to rule-out or rule-in unproven opinion.

Quote from Kalosyni

This points out how it is necessary, when you are first beginning an evaluation of truth, to be sure you have included all of your observations (as per the senses), and then also it is necessary to distinguish between various types of evidence and assign levels of trustworthiness onto each type (see PD22) - and it must be done correctly at the basic starting level or else your later observations will be made in error. And so we see that there are: 1) observations as per the senses, 2) conclusions that already exist through earlier opinions on the matter, 3) new inferences generated by the newest observations. All of these must be distinguished (one from another) and no conclusions should be stated as true until there are adequate observations which clearly confirm the conclusion.

PD.22: "We must consider both the real purpose, and all the evidence of direct perception, to which we always refer the conclusions of opinion; otherwise, all will be full of doubt and confusion." Bold added

Quote from Cassius

That's right, and it's not easy but what's the alternative? You can throw up your hands and not even try to get it right. That's what is advocated by Socrates and the radical skeptics who say it's never possible to be confident of anything. And what do you do then? - You give up studying nature and you retreat to wishful thinking about "virtue" - and let others make decisions for you.

That's a high price to pay to just to win a pat on the back from modern philosophers.

Quote from DaveT

Agreeing with your post, but I don't catch your meaning of this part.

Quote from Cassius

I would like to be proven wrong, but my own perception is that the problems posed by skepticism and how to unwind them are much deeper than what many seem to think.

Quote from Cassius

That's right, and it's not easy but what's the alternative? You can throw up your hands and not even try to get it right. That's what is advocated by Socrates and the radical skeptics who say it's never possible to be confident of anything. And what do you do then? - You give up studying nature and you retreat to wishful thinking about "virtue" - and let others make decisions for you.

That's a high price to pay to just to win a pat on the back from modern philosophers.

Quote from Cassius

That's a high price to pay to just to win a pat on the back from modern philosophers.

Agreeing with your post, but I don't catch your meaning of this part.

Quote from Kalosyni

And if among the mental images created by your opinion you affirm both that which awaits confirmation, and that which does not, you will not escape error, since you will have preserved the whole cause of doubt in every judgment between what is right and what is wrong."

I appreciate your observations. I do not take issue with your prior thoughts on how different people might not understand consensus. And I find the quote from PD 24 highly appropriate here. An opinion affirmed only in part will not escape error. However, you can affirm all of an opinion by consensus.

I think there is a better way to treat the idea of presenting truth confirmed by consensus than the problems you saw.

Looking at the scientific method, and I hope anyone will correct my knowledge on the scientific method, once certain evidence (by opinion) exists, it must be tested by others, i.e. experts, to see if the evidence can be falsifiable, or disproven. If it can be, it will not be accepted as true. Therefore, we can choose to rely on the scientific method to know the world, and why religions, to my understanding, never try to disprove their “evidence” qua myths and dogmas.

So, my approach is to challenge myself whether there is high confidence via consensus in the evidence supporting any opinion, theory, faith, or belief. To the believer in divine providence, I can challenge their evidence. I can show evidence that nature can come into existence with no divine first cause. Can I prove what occurred before the Big Bang? Personally? No. But cosmologists are uncovering evidence every day, giving them an idea of what existed before then.

My opinion on the creation of everything is based on a consensus of scientists on that topic, that the universe as we understand it came to be without divine providence. And I see no evidence of divine creation. For example, evolution is true and creation in Eden is not. If someone proves some part of evolution is false by a scientific method of consensus, then I have to yield. Another example, Einstein’s theories of relativity are not accepted as 100% true in the face of new discoveries proven by consensus. But until that time (and there have been times) scientists will accept every specific part by consensus as true.

Most of us know that sunrise will occur tomorrow, and I bet every astrophysicist will acknowledge that to be true. But they know there is a possibility, however slight, that something we do not understand might occur and sunrise will not happen.

And this brings me to the words possibility versus probability. If I may for the moment rely on my legal training; a probability of something occurring is that it is more likely to happen than it will not happen. The degree of probability can always be contestable, but we can choose to rely on the probability as a proven fact if it is over 50% probable, but certainly a far higher degree for scientists, unless we see acceptable opposing evidence.

Someone may ask, “Is it possible that Einstein was wrong about (something) and Steven Hawking disproved it?” In that case, scientists will set to work trying to disprove Hawking's new idea. And if after years of testing Hawking’s idea may become so probably correct that by consensus it is accepted as a fact. There is no need to say Hawking is possibly or probably right. It is not false to say to anyone, regardless of their educational level, that Hawking’s idea is true because it has been “proven".

So, I think knowing that nothing can be 100% proven now and forever is not a barrier to my beliefs. And everyone has their own probability level of belief.

The faithful believer may stay with his faith because there is not sufficient evidence it is false, that even a small proof of the existence of their god(s) is enough to accept it as fact. And just the same, an Epicurean can ignore the possibility that they are wrong about divine providence since they may regard the small probability of error to be enough to disregard it.

Quote from Cassius

Certainly it is the skeptical position to set up "absolute certainty" as a knowingly impossible target and thereby argue that nothing can be known for sure through the senses, and thereby assert that only through something equivalent to "ideal forms" can be held to be true.

Of course, this is not what I was saying, right?

Yet, what is the problem with the phrase "a high degree of confidence"? Do you think this is radical skepticism in the sense of the Hellenistic era of Greece, or in the modern sense of the word scepticism? Surely Epicurus would be amenable to the modern concept of sceptical reasoning since it would be the basis of rejecting ideal forms. Frankly, I have no problem with either usage of the word scepticism in the modern era in which we find ourselves. Neither one to me rules out believing anything with merely a high degree of confidence rather than absolute certainty.

Sorry I missed the Wed. meeting this thread is discussing. With that in mind, knowing I may be addressing something tangential, I note several things in this thread that have made me think more deeply.

Quote from Kalosyni

Quoting Godfrey It seems to me that multiple explanations are typically used by Epicurus to rule out the supernatural....

It also seems that multiple explanations can be used to support a theory by ruling out the competing theories....

It looks to me like Godfrey was saying there are two reasons a person may use multiple explanations to some topic; to disprove a point and to make a point.

Quote from Kalosyni

Quoting Cassius "....the point is that is not always possible to be sure which of several explanations might be the right one, ... we aren't going to be dogmatic..." "But as to basic issues such as nothing coming or going to nothing, or no supernatural gods, or no life after death, the positive evidence is abundant to RULE OUT those possibilities, so we dogmatically assert their falsity.

The two approaches - dogmatically rejecting that which is NOT possible, and suspending judgment between those which ARE possible - go hand in hand.

Of course all of the explanations asserted may all be false, and therefore fall within the realm of speculation and therefore explaining nothing to either prove or to disprove another's speculation. \

But the second part does give me pause;

Quote from Kalosyni

Quoting Cassius "But as to basic issues such as nothing coming or going to nothing, or no supernatural gods, or no life after death, the positive evidence is abundant to RULE OUT those possibilities, so we dogmatically assert their falsity."

I think the danger here in being comfortable with any sort of Epicurean dogma on physics is that while some of Epicurus' physics has proven more likely true than false, one must tread very lightly in attributing to him an omniscience akin to absolute knowledge. I see no evidence that there is life after death, and a great deal of evidence how humans invented numerous types of life after death throughout history to explain the unexplainable. I see no evidence that gods exist for the same reasons of contrary evidence about human nature. Indeed Epicurus believed in gods with no evidence of their existence. Correct?

And to follow up on this point, Epicurean theory about atoms was more a hypothesis, than a theory since he had no direct evidence of the truth of his statements, much of which parenthetically he learned from Democritus. True or false?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

QUOTE from Martin

"The study of physics/nature may give us sufficient confidence about the non-interference of gods and no life after death that we get rid of fears about them. We should not wait until the evidence for this is conclusive because it will never be conclusive."

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I agree with the focus of Martinabove.

And I see this issue on each side who advocate for either theist v. atheist, atomism v. creationism, divine cause vs. nothing from nothing as never being conclusive by either side, either by direct or indirect (circumstantial) proof. THERE IS NO UNCHANGING TRUTH on these issues, only confidence or lack of confidence based on whatever evidence we've found.

What I mean is, the Scientific Method does not demand absolute proof raised to the level of dogma or certainty regardless that people take findings to be absolute. The word Science is derived from the Latin "to know" But scientists, those who search for knowledge of the natural world, do not claim to know anything beyond a doubt. Neither do they claim knowledge that is unchanging forever. They rely on newly discoverable evidence and the testing required to prove or disprove any particular occurrence in nature in order to arrive at a consensus of opinion. And that opinion only give a high degree of confidence rather than an absolute certainty.

Quote from Kalosyni

We have only two options: to learn from other's mistakes (or their advice) or to learn from our own mistakes.

Yes in many ways this is true and vital for each of us. Yet, I'm thinking about how Epicurus thought we ought to navigate within our ordinary daily habits and small choices. I think they are barely noticeable to us as we go about the day. Retrospective reviews of our past actions in pursuit of reduced anxiety or physical pleasure are easier (if we are introspective from time to time). Like recognizing that carrying that 30 extra pounds is the result of engaging in unnecessary desires over the last x number of years is not healthy and we maybe, ought to eat less.

Certainly the small things that happen every day add up. Like negative thinking, and who among us has the skill set to analyze our daily lives in an ongoing manner to address and reduce negative thinking or on the physical side, over eating, much less reducing physical pain or discomfort? Perhaps my examples are poor ones, and they certainly are not meant to be exclusive.

And this is why I originally asked if Epicurus was saying we ought to make choices just at "critical times" in his later writings (if it was later in his life), as opposed to frequently making choices and avoidances in our mundane daily lives (which seems nearly impossible as an ongoing practice to be happy).

Hello Don, @ Joshua Kalosyni I found Don's post from 2020 while reading Kalosyni's post from yesterday on using "Joy" as a goal. It started me thinking; how might one actually find the time to make choices or avoidances in a practical sense.

When I got to Don's post, the first thing that caught me, (I know this wasn't your main point) was a part of the quote below from PD25: "If at all critical times, you do not connect your actions...."

And then when I compared PD 25 with the quotation below from the Letter to Menoikos "...the starting point of every choice and aversion...." I saw a distinction between the two concepts and particularly I wondered about the time periods of Epicurus' life when he wrote PD25 and the Letter to Menoikos. I mean to ask, which came first the generalization of at the starting point of every choice, etc, or the at critical times?

And this question is perhaps a subset of the foundational question of what does he mean by "at critical times"?

And I think these two questions of mine are important for my consideration of Kalosyni 's post for the following reasons.

1. Who has the ability to make daily choices before the question arises or the sensation of pain, or excess pleasure arises?

2. Did Epicurus expect us to constantly analyze our physical and mental states to gauge our, let's call it adjustments to balance our experiences to tend toward pleasure, or happiness or joy?

If we all share the sensations of daily life, it seems worthy of knowing did Epicurus originally in time say "at the start of" and later decide to clarify his teaching to remind his followers that they need to make choices at "critical time."?

I'd love to see various translations of Epicurus's use of the word Greek word for critical to help me better understand these issues. Thanks in advance.

Quote from Don

Letter to Menoikos where we read: "we honor [pleasure] in everything we accept or reject" in one translation of a line and "[Pleasure] is the starting-point of every choice and of every aversion" in another translation of the same line. In these, we are to "accept and reject" or to engage in "choice" and "aversion." What does the original say? Αἱρέσεως καὶ φυγῆς. The same words as the title of the lost book, but this time with different shades of meaning in translations.

Quote from Don

Consider Principal Doctrine 25: "If at all critical times you do not connect each of your actions to the natural goal of life, but instead turn too soon to some other kind of goal in thinking whether to avoid or pursue something, then your thoughts and your actions will not be in harmony." Here we are told to decide "whether to avoid or pursue something" εἴ τε φυγὴν εἴ τε δίωξιν. We encounter φυγὴν again, but now αἵρεσῐς "choice" is replaced by δίωξιν meaning "chase, pursuit." So, "choice and avoidance" in this case takes on a sense of "from what should I flee or what should I pursue." Again, giving us a richer sense of the practice.

Cassius Thank you.

Quote from Kalosyni

A main benefit of prayer is the development of a feeling of courage.

I can agree with your statement as a goal of praying. As I think about it, Christians probably pray mostly to ask divine intervention of some sort.

For example John 16:23–24 The New King James Version
"23 And in that day you will ask Me nothing. Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you. 24 Until now you have asked nothing in My name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full."

And of course the shared prayer of most all Christians "...give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses..., lead us not into temptation...; deliver us from evil,..."

So, I consider this concept of the divine direction to pray as the primary "no go" distinction with Epicurus' self actualization. As I understand Epicurus, he would not abide by the doctrine of divine grace, and the intercession of the Virgin and the saints (for Catholics at least).

Psychologists, Sociologists, and Archaeologists among others will never be able to pinpoint the cause of the human urge to attribute divine power to control the universe. That urge seems likely to me in most, if not every existing religious belief. And religions no matter the time or era or location will never investigate or dig into a concept that relies upon "Faith" in the unknowable. Nor will they abide in questioning the foundations of their particular faith.

Cassius Agreed. I put eternal in quotes in reference to the proponents of eternal forms, etc.

I also am not well versed in ancient Greek culture. I tend to think the "eternal" Virtues of the ancient Greeks were the product of Socrates, Plato, and the other schools envisioned as eternal forms to guide public life and social structure. The focus on their Virtues would result in a social structure with guard rails designed to preserve what they believed was the unique status of being Greek.

On the other side of it, I tend to think of Epicurus, who preferred to avoid being a public or political person who thought more of virtue as subjective tools designed to improve the individual. Designed to perfect the individual's goal of happiness, rather than perfecting the social welfare of the city states and their colonies.

Am I close on this perspective or missing the mark by a mile?