Posts by DaveT

Don  Patrikios Well, what troubles me, is that quoting Epicurus, and his followers leaves the modern sensitivities at the mercy of modern language. For example: my point is that deep explanation of the word pleasure is a turn off to the newly exposed person. To have to point to Epicurus saying "we do not say" is taking up the language connotations of the "opposition" unnecessarily. The prevailing undercurrent of meaning, shamefulness, is fighting on the other side's home turf as it were. I like better Patrikios personal approach than the rote explanations for what Epicurean pleasure means and doesn't mean. And to repeat my intention in my earlier post; thinking that Epicurus celebrated life as a goal, per DeWitt, is the more satisfying explanation. As I was saying, my approach is not for the purpose of evangelizing this philosophy to the masses, it is for an alternate approach to answering the new inquirer's question of what's it all about, and explaining my own attraction, in casual conversation with friends, about of some of Epicurus's ethics that I try to adopt in my own life.

Eikadistes Thank you for taking the time to respond to the above questions. I think your explanations were instructive to me and also they solidified my instincts. Additionally, (and however) I think the point of this thread is not explaining Epicurus to the masses.

Quote from Eikadistes

He also says, "Never did I reach to please the masses, for truly what pleases them, I did not understand, but what I understood was far away from their perception" (Usener 187).

On the contrary, the focus at least for me, is to address the newcomer to EpicureanFriends, as well as when I'm explaining my beliefs to a friend in casual conversation.

The Pleasure/Pain focus, rather than the absolute truth of his belief, is not the most pressing issue for the modern day understanding of Epicurus’ brilliant analytic methods. And I thought when@Cassius was asking for feedback at the Zoom meeting for ways to give clear and concise explanations of Epicureanism to newcomers, it was an important topic.

I think understanding of Pleasure/Pain motivations for living happily should depend less on a reliance on defining Pleasure over and over with one caveat after another and which every reader may interpret in their own way depending on their life experiences and depend more on the overall truth Epicurus discovered.

De Witt, in Philosophy for the Millions, says: “In spite of this teaching it was not the doctrine of Epicurus that pleasure was the greatest good. To his thinking the greatest good was life itself. (Italics added) This was a logical deduction from the denial of immortality. Without the afterlife this present life becomes the concentration of all values...."

My guesstimate is that the newcomer to Epicureanism is seeking clarity of purpose. And therefore they may be best served by a response focused on an overall belief that the “greatest good” is “life itself”. Phrased that way, that avoiding suffering and finding happiness are the tools to the greatest good, seems a far better approach to me.

Final note: When you want to win an argument with detractors, and we understand there have been over two thousand years of detractors who (still) have won over the western world culture, you don't repeat the very word they demean when you respond to attack. The ingrained inference that pursuing pleasure is shameful in a world where sacrifice to attain the next life is simply too strong a current to swim against by giving deeper and deeper explanations of the meaning of the word. Sometimes you need to cede the battle of "well pleasure does not mean...." and move on to building a better understanding of Epicureanism with alternate words like Life Itself is the Greatest Good.

Quote from Eikadistes

He quotes Epíkouros as writing "...that it is possible even for many eternal and immortal gods to exist"

"Possible" does not remotely approach probable, or likely, or certainly. To me, that word is similar to saying, "I don't know, maybe, maybe not, and it doesn't matter to me one way or the other."

This general topic of who, or what gods may exist and what they do seems pretty vaguely written, and perhaps intentionally. For example, in De Rerum Natura, Lucretius begins by asking Venus to help him out as he writes the poem. Another example might be the one raised briefly in earlier posts here, relating to matter and void. If there is only matter and void in his world view, how can transcendent gods even possibly exist if they are not flesh and blood? I wonder how important the existence of gods was to Epicurus anyway, since his foundation was to simply not fear the gods (if they even possibly exist?) He certainly never, that I have seen, propounded on where they came from and why they exist at all, did he?

I had read an interesting book: The Longing for Total Revolution: Philosophic Sources of Social Discontent from Rousseau to Marx and Nietzsche, by Bernard Yack (Princeton University Press, 1986) awhile back that touched on Marx's focus on economics as the way for mankind to be free of nature's roadblocks to ultimate freedom (hunger, want, depredation etc.). The discussion traced the different foci of those philosophers on the means to attain freedom as they defined it. Perhaps it might be a decent companion piece to the economic contrasts of Marx to Epicurus.

I liked learning about ancient worship practices discussed here. I can add some insight to the original posting by Kalosyni My experiences in Salem Massachusetts where my novel on the witch trials brought me to Salem multiple times. You might be amazed at the absolute craziness of the tourism there from the beginning of September all the way through October every year. They claim over a million people visit Salem, and Halloween is the epitome of their tourism season. The original draw is because of its historical importance after the witch trials of 1692 but the place has the modern reputation of being welcoming to all sorts and beliefs. And let me tell you, the interest in ancient as well as modern witchcraft by people in the U.S. has probably never been greater. But beyond that, during Halloween season visitors can be wildly different in dress and costume than their hometowns might permit. This permissiveness or welcoming of the strange and different can be attributed to many different reasons but there it is. Oh, and of course good old capitalism plays a role in the entire tourism structure both in Salem as well as the rest of the large and small cities across the U.S.

Quote from Cassius

I consider all information about people like LeSage and others who explore rational explanations for phenomena that is poorly understood to be helpful to everyone as examples of the right attitude, regardless if they don't complete the job that we'd like to see completed.

I'm still on vacation, but catching up a little. I must not understand what you mean because I think this does not lead to an attitude of discovering truth about the natural world. Of course, the value of a statement like this depends on the audience. For those uneducated in science, it leads to ignorance. For those focused on discoveries of the natural world , they know that theory must be proven by observation and experimentation. Otherwise, debunked theories like this one of LeSage's lead the average reader nowhere closer to understanding the truth.

Quote from Cassius

To any audience of normally educated people, all you have to do is strip "absence of pain" of its explanation, and Epicurean philosophy becomes ridiculous.

Not sure I can agree that normally educated people would view those three words as ridiculous. While keeping in mind we are discussing a small aspect of avoiding pain by pleasurable sensations/thoughts, I think even poorly educated people who hear (rather than read) as well as anyone educated can understand that putting your feet up at the end of a rough day can diminish pain. It simply feels good, to chill. So, whether they think the good thoughts or just go blank, it doesn't seem ridiculous to me.

Quote from Cassius

Cicero and Plutarch and Seneca and others did exactly that. They gave the Epicurean slogans detached from the Epicurean explanations in physics and canonics, and thereby they wrote the narrative that has prevailed ever since.

I understand that, but of course educated individuals who, on their own time or professionally, understand the nature of things by reading and studying can see through adversarial attacks. Those individuals, since the Enlightenment had, and continue to have, out sized influence on the modern world.

I’m thinking that there will never be a popular understanding or adoption of Epicureanism as “Epicureanism”. Rather, the influence on the Western world will continue to be indirectly felt by the progress of Epicurean principles, at the very least in overcoming superstition and religious doctrine about life after death.

So, can we say that Epicureanism, though a personal guide to happiness, has little direct influence on individuals, but its greatest influence, ironically, is through the impact on the modern world’s science, art, and governance of societies?

Quote from Cassius

And the worst part is that many of today's friends of Epicurus continue to do exactly the same thing, burying the philosophy deeper rather than doing anything to recover the explanation.

Can you discuss specifics here? And individuals?

What negative impact do you think those “friends” have on any understanding of the Epicurean pursuit of happiness? I’m thinking of the common behavior of people in seeking pleasure over pain by living prudently, but the value of keeping friendships, of understanding natural laws, avoiding superstition, etc.

Cassius  Joshua I enjoyed your presentation of Episode 298 today. And having listened to the arguments of Cicero as he presents his disputes with Epicurus, I’ve frequently wondered why he wrote as he did. One foundation of good writing that I learned over time is that as a writer, you must know your audience. You shape your premise and your theme based on the audience who will read the work. So, to whom was Cicero writing? I take it he was not orating. What did he want to accomplish?

As I understand the timing, Epicureanism had been flourishing in pre-Christian times, even before the time of Julius Caesar and Cicero. And I understand that the pagan religions (and other schools of philosophy?) were trying to override Epicureanism as competition. Is this correct that they were religious or philosophical schools, or both?

So, who was Cicero trying to convert to his Platonic belief that eternal virtues are the highest good?

Was he succeeding in his goal? And is that the reason he kept at it, sensing that he was winning the game?

Cassiusand Raphael Raul I'm looking forward to your further contributions. I confess I'm still somewhat mystified on the attention each of you give to this topic. To me, this topic only matters when outsiders are discussing and judging the behavior of others in contrast to what I understand as the Epicurean focus on the subjective sensations of what we feel and think about. What we feel while living our lives of avoiding pain through actions that create pleasure seems to me, all that should matter to us.

If you are surveying opinions: I don't support a thread of "ways to resist AI". Even beyond the semantics, I'm not sure this is even apposite to the focus of our forum. I am eager to learn to use AI and understand its uses while retaining an appropriate level of skepticism of all sources of information.

I understand the question from Titus and @Elkadites’ response as: currently, LLMs cannot have preconceptions if preconceptions mean an idea conceived before and independent of the question. Also, as I understand the LLMs, they function because of training that exposes them to data (everything on the internet and/or fed directly to them) plus additional training after data collection, on how to “talk” to the people asking questions. Then, the LLM matches the question to its data, based on how it is phrased, and answers in a polite colloquial manner. I’ve found sometimes it then summarizes the response it has given, once again based only on the data in its microchips.

Quote from Don

It's sort of the uncanny valley transposed to the audio instead of video environment.

Thanks for showing that. Whoddathought? I may lose the battle long term, but I have to fight against using female pronouns when referring to my GPS's voice in the car, and Alexa's voice at home. It's--it--it!

I enjoyed both the original podcasts and the summaries. To my level of understanding, the summaries complement the long form podcasts. For me, listening to both deepens my own thoughts process.

And on the tech level at this stage of the development, all I can say is WOW!

Quote from Matteng

The path to pleasure/eudaimonia always leads via virtue. I see the biggest difference (virtue or pleasure as the core of eudaimonia/life goal) in that eudaimonia, the good self or inner spirit, is defined by the Stoics as "doing good" while Epicureans define it as "experiencing good."

I am enjoying this discussion. I recently read that a distinction between the Stoics and the Epicureans was that the Stoics focused on a public, civic-minded orientation, and thus a belief in virtue as a goal to that end. And that the Epicureans’ belief in more private life promoted pleasure etc. and friendship for personal happiness. I know this may sound simplistic, but that comparison helps me understand why the two philosophies were so different in the view and uses of virtue.

I have a hard time dealing with the words “skeptic, skepticism, etc.” Sometimes people use them carelessly, and other times, perhaps after thoughtfulness, they use them in a narrow sense. His use seems to be that of the ancient Greek Skeptics. We’ve all looked at the chart that came from the article that I read. I’m skeptical about the author’s credibility (he’s a music critic). But, okay.

The chart is alleged to show possible results from his diagnosis of societal problems caused by AI, but these are possibilities that have no relationship to the probability of anything he wrote about occurring. Sadly, mental illness is a curse for those trying to survive in our modern world, but come on! Blaming AI? Already? For sure, we need guardrails on any new application of advanced technology, but his chart could be a list of fearsome results from the discovery of mRNA vaccines.

As far as his chart goes, yes, those are bad things, bad, bad, bad things for any society’s common welfare. (I’m getting out of breath here.) I could blame those ills on many things affecting individuals yesterday, today, or tomorrow. So, meh.

I reject his scare tactics, and more specifically, I reject his definition of skepticism as a negative behavior. Skepticism is healthy when properly used. My definition varies depending on the topic. A general usage to me is that I’m skeptical of any proposition that seems to lack proofs, and I’m willing to suspend my belief or disbelief until I see enough proof to satisfy me.

I'm on the road today so I'll miss seeing everyone on our Sunday zoom.

Cassius But it is precisely because the positions taken on physics do impact the other issues and have such clear implications for them that Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins found it appropriate to argue. *** It is my perception that Krauss sees the importance of the same conflict as does Dawkins, but from the opposite viewpoint."

I do want to honor your desire to focus more on the ethics, which I principally enjoy studying as well. However, it would have been clearer and helpful to show what particular physics topics you are referring to here as impacting other topics.

I followed your lead but only quickly reviewed Krauss’ and Dawkins’ professional relations. I see that they have a long history of collaboration rather than argument. Indeed, Dawkins wrote the Afterward to Krauss’ mentioned book mentioned by you, A Universe From Nothing. Looking further, apparently they did initially have different views on the degree to which science and faith could coexist. Krauss was early in favor in order to ease the conflict between the two, and Dawkins opposed. However, Krauss, while asserting that the universe can have occurred without the involvement of any divine hand, apparently has abandoned the view of coexistence that for public acceptance of the science and he is more in line with Dawkins belief in the incompatibility of the two.

Cassius “I do not defer to Richard Dawkins as a modern-day Epicurus, but if there is anyone sensitive to Epicurus’s viewpoint as they conflict with modern attitudes, I would put Dawkins near the top of the list.” This seems somewhat accurate regarding his position on ongoing Divine Providence, but of course they differ in that Epicurus acknowledged disinterested gods and I expect Dawkins does not acknowledge them at all.

Cassius “And I do not see Dawkins and Krauss as outliers, but as the tip of the iceberg.”

And here, I’m not clear on the iceberg reference. What iceberg? If it refers to atheistic science, I see them both agreeing, but rather than sharing a tip, they are part of the entire iceberg threatening the Abrahamic religions of the Western world, indeed all other faiths proclaiming divine creation and involvement in the universe.

Last, I don’t see any actual conflict between Krauss’ cosmology and physics and Epicurus’ physics. As far as determinism versus indeterminism is concerned, the same goes. I’m quite content to follow the experimental proofs to see if the appropriate scientific community finds consensus on any theoretical proposition, as I’ve discussed earlier. This process continues, and consensus may take many years to reach, even beyond my lifetime. I’m fine with that.

Of course, I don’t need an immediate response, so please respond at your convenience.

Quote from Don

Quote

Benatar explained. “But compare that with a scenario in which that person never existed—then, the absence of the bad would be good, but the absence of the good wouldn’t be bad, because there’d be nobody to be deprived of those good things.” This asymmetry “completely stacks the deck against existence,” he continued, because it suggests that “all the unpleasantness and all the misery and all the suffering could be over, without any real cost.”

I don't know anything about this subject yet, but this quote reminds me of the nonsensical quip: I'd like to have a ham and egg sandwich if I had some ham, if I had some eggs.

Cassius  Bryan  Rolf I’m sorry to say this discussion makes me believe there are two points of argument that do not intersect. I’m not sure Cassius and Bryan are relying on the same language as I have been using about the scientific process. Let me restate my point of analysis and then ask you for further clarification.

Scientific inquiry in the modern sense demands that actual experiments prove theoretical (mathematical) evidence to the satisfaction of the entire community of that discipline. This is the consensus that the scientific process demands before something satisfies the experts as true.

The community does this process to the best of its ability to disprove the theoretical concept. Scientists who propose theories, and who present actual experiments to prove their theories, demand that their colleagues disprove their experimental results as they try to advance the field of knowledge. So, only after someone propounds a theory and other scientists either prove it repeatedly in experiments or disprove it, does a consensus get reached. The community cannot decide something as true to the best of its ability before that.

Now, for example, the priestly class, which I do not follow as experts, always tries to protect its own expertise against challenge, rather than invite efforts to challenge their beliefs (which often have no discernible proofs anyway). This is especially true of the priests of the peoples of the book: Jews, Christians, and Muslims. When people consider any book inspired and immutable, priests claim the sole right to interpret those books, solicit no challenges, and deny all challenges.

Isn’t the distinction between the two clear? One protects ancient truths against all comers, and the other invites all comers to disprove past beliefs (or a proposed new discovery).

Now, I know this may cut deep as I explain my understanding of these topics, but I think a discussion of this topic can be illuminating if we understand our points better. So, for example, the assertions that there are “others” out there who use science to attack Epicurus’ beliefs has confused me. In law and debate, referring to an unnamed party to make a point is called creating a straw man. Surely, to have a fair discussion if a theoretical straw man is used to support an argument, we can’t get far in understanding each other.

For example:

Quote from Cassius “I think that Epicurus would reject that attitude even if he were here today. and especially if he were here today to see the effects of some scientists - by no means all - making similar claims.” Who specifically are the scientists you refer to?

And Cassius “But despite their expertise in specific subject areas, claims of mysticism, radical skepticism, and total determinism are already adequately proved to be false.” Who claim mysticism radical skepticism and total determinism?

And Cassius: “it is my observation that tolerance of opinions which dissent from that which is proclaimed to be “mainstream” by the majority is declining fast. And that’s an inherent bug (or feature) of the deference to experts in matters of philosophy vs. science." Declining fast? Where is this observed? Tolerance of proclaiming? (experimental proof is not a proclamation, nor an opinion) How is it a bug? and who is deferring to which experts?

And Bryan “If someone says they have a particular knowledge that you cannot access -- but from their knowledge they then teach you something that contradicts your experience, then they have all the intellectual power. They may as well have hypnotized you! How can anyone else have contradictory experience to challenge an expert if it is knowledge they cannot access?

They can then say absurd things such as “matter has no fundamental form” or that “matter can generate from no matter” -- which comes from religious assumptions and is supported by self-referencing mathematics not scientific real-life observations.In this way they cover your eyes and remove all your footing." Who are these people (the they)? Religious assumptions of whom? Do you perceive specific scientists to be trying to cover the eyes of anyone?

I'm hoping my clarifications are useful, and look forward to more clarity overall in this discussion.

Quote from Cassius

It wouldn't matter to me if Martin or 100 people with more experience than Martin were to tell me that "modern physics establishes that there is a mystical realm, or modern physics establishes that knowledge is impossible, or modern physics establishes that human life is entirely mechanistic."

Cassius Respectfully, and I don't wish to belabor the points in this thread, but your quoted phrase is rather an overstatement. I don't think scientific endeavor used by mainstream scientists exploring and testing the boundaries of physics, have an agenda to prove there are mystical realms or that knowledge is impossible. Quite the opposite.

And even those scientists (thinkers and experimenters) who are exploring the degree to which human behavior is entirely mechanistic, I.e. biologically and environmentally determined,will admit that theirs is a minority opinion so far.

The real debate today over behavior and free will, as I understand it, is not a zero sum debate, but rather to what degree is our behavior determined by biology, and environment (culture, etc.) vs. to what degree it is not. Those exploring whether there is a middle ground are called Compatibilists.