Posts by DaveT

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.

Quote from Cassius

I might well entertain adopting the rule that before I admit any credibility in anyone claiming to be an expert in "quantum weirdness" I would first want to know the writer's personal position on mysticism, determinism, and skepticism. And if he or she wasn't willing to lay their cards on the table on these issues, that would be a major red flag.

If you were to consider such a rule for yourself or any other inquirer, I'd suggest that none of us, (except perhaps Martin ) have any capacity to judge the credibility of those giants of modern physics you refer to above. Furthermore, asking that these giants who are recognized universally within modern science to be examined on, or that they voluntarily explain, their possible mysticism, and determinism or skepticism as defined and studied in the field of philosophical inquiry may be a much for any scientist to do or for the inquirer to comprehend.

I think Epicurus demands that we learn more about the natural world, does he not?

Here are the principal places where I get my science news: The World Science Festival by physicist Brian Greene <https://www.worldsciencefestival.com/>. Big Think, a broadly science based program <https://bigthink.com/>. Sabine Hossenfelder is a physicist who shows (with touches of humor) the scientific method of critical analysis as she shows the way science advances discovery. <https://www.youtube.com/@SabineHossenfelder/videos>

As a self-educated learner of physics and science, I know that my level of rudimentary understanding takes consistent attention. It takes time; it does not lead to a way to live a happy life (as Epicurus does) but I think the study is immanently of science is Epicurean.

I’m not very concerned about the impact of online pop pseudoscience, nor about any conceivable subversive motivations of scientists to undermine anyone else’s philosophy or religion.

My understanding of this general topic is that our collective search for knowledge of the natural world is a process that invites, indeed demands, critical analysis. Science challenges itself this way, attacking methods or proposals of any kind in order to arrive at the newest, best understanding of our universe.

In addition to the texts here on the website, I've just started reading "The Epicurus Reader: Selected Writings and Testimonia" by Brad Inwood and L.P.Gerson. I find it easier to read than DeWitt. In addition to the usual texts, I am anticipating getting to the part containing extensive short fragments and testimonia from other various ancient sources. It's about 100 pages in total. DeWitt's argumentative and old fashioned professorial style is a chore for me.

I follow the issue discussed here, but my perspective is a bit different. First, not too many people are going to read this book. On Amazon, it has 27 reader reviews, and it’s been out since last January. Second, it is a self-help book as much as any other content, to help people deal with the 21st century. Third, his market is an overwhelmingly Christianized western world, which is dominated by the belief in an Abrahamic divinity’s providential influence as trials and tribulations upon mankind. (Whew!)

To me, the earlier Austin reference by Don. It cuts to the perhaps largest issue when comparing the similarities and distinctions in the Stoic vs Epicurean debate. And this debate is essentially the same one that mental health counselors, psychiatrists and many other professions that focus on helping people cope with the struggle to live better in our modern western world (without regard to religion). I don't see how one wins or loses in this philosophical battle over a book that only partially addresses Epicurus’ truths. I think perhaps any discussion of Epicurus is a good one. Kind of like the cynical quip, “I don’t care too much what you write about me, just spell my name correctly in the newspaper.”

Patrikios I mentioned I'd post the book I read recently on consciousness. I found this interesting. Being You: A New Science of Consciousness – October 19, 2021
by Anil Seth (Author)

Cassius  Don Like so much of Epicurus' thoughts, I find his logic fascinating. Whether he is correct or not as our technology discovers more of nature, is not so important to me. However, I wonder if this concept of all matter being constructed from atoms is one more reason some other schools of philosophy were threatened by his conclusions on nature. Rather than saying everything was made up of water, or fire, he bypassed both and posited that water and fire were composed of atoms. Thoughts?

Cassius: Thanks. I respect your scholarly analysis and your cautions to me on the Introduction above. I have read Austin and just reviewed Nikolsky's Abstract <https://www.academia.edu/11301216/Epicu…work_card=title>

But it seems to me they and most of the textual histories are far deeper than I am inclined to dig into. Records here on EpicureanFriends are satisfactory guidance from a master logician and communicator for my level.

The distinctions of types of pleasure you point out haven't concerned me that much for two reasons: most of the writers in ancient times up to the present, seem to have a motive, dare I say an ax to grind, and I usually take everything I read, including expert translations of texts supporting Epicurus as useful, with at least a small grain of salt. And secondly, my nature is to try to boil down complex thoughts to the simplest analysis I'm able to absorb so that I can structure a lifestyle I'm comfortable with.

I didn't read the section on the Introduction to the Plutarch's writing I posted above to be anything more than my discovery of an interpretation by a scholar, who among so many others was trying to make sense of Plutarch's thoughts. Since it looks to me that almost everything we attribute as Epicurus' thoughts are second hand except perhaps the few original records extent we are forced to accept those records as good faith efforts by other men who support Epicurean philosophy.

Cassius Thank you for posting the above. I found the Introduction from pps. 2-10 very clearly described the translation of Plutarch that followed. And in particular, at p.4 the following quote caught my attention regarding our discussion on last Sunday's zoom comparing and contrasting the two types of pleasures Epicurus said we experience."
“Pleasure, according to the Epicureans, is the highest good ; it is the ultimate aim of all our activities past, present, and future. It is of two kinds, pleasure of a settled state, and pleasure in motion. The settled pleasure is the same as the absence of pain ; indeed only those pleasures in movement are chosen that are incidental to the riddance of pain.

Such are the pleasures of the body. Pleasure of the mind is a reflection of these. Absence of perturbation (atarazia) corresponds to the settled pleasures of the body, and animation (euphrosyné) at the anticipation or remembrance of a pleasure in movement of the body is a pleasure in movement of the mind. Because it is not limited to the present but draws also on past and future, pleasure of the mind admits of greater stability and permanence than pleasure of the body ; it is thus the proper object of the philosophical life.”

Does anyone care to elaborate on this explanation?

I recently read that the Roman religious beliefs were accepting of other religious concepts. It was given that this was why the Greek religious (philosophical?) beliefs were followed as they were before and after the C.E. This adaptability then was posited as the reason that formerly pagan Romans eventually accepted Christian beliefs after they initially tried to stamp them out. Certainly the story is much more complicated than that, but perhaps it is a partial factor.

Comments please.

I've come across the following post questioning the attribution of VS 47 to Epicurus himself: VS 47" I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and entrenched myself against all thy secret attacks. And we will not give ourselves up as captives to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who here vainly cling to it, we will leave life crying aloud in a glorious triumph-song that we have lived well."

SOURCE: https://www.epicurism.info/etexts/VS.html#**

Cassius (forgive the Bold type, I can't see how to change it) Regarding your comments about the Krauss book above, and physics for the layperson. His book is from 2013, and over the last 12 years there have been around 30000 reviews posted on Goodreads. That's 2500 per year. I doubt many lay people will ever read this book, and fewer yet among spiritualists. I often try to ask about the potential impact of anything presented as fact from the position of the layperson, also. Not sure it matters to ask about the impact of modern physics, when it comes to philosophical inquiry, though. As a basis for argument among the well educated, OK, fine, but for ordinary teaching and learning? Only the process of logical deduction (like in science) is important when discussing Epicurus, right?

I like this quote from Richard Powers who wrote that there is not anything that is “a matter of fact….there is only observing and humility." I think that is a fair request for the layperson as well as the experts in any field. And as for the foundations of physics, scientific discovery is never 100 percent certain, the scientists always challenge their community to disprove their conclusions, and that is the search for knowledge, isn't it?

And if I can add, paraphrasing Brian Greene; I come from the stuff of stars and to that state I shall return, and I'm happy with that.

Allow me a respectful comment on this thread. I think it is not helpful to compare and contrast the physical world hypotheses of the various ancient thinkers with our complex modern science of physics. Sometimes, an ancient thinker, by a fortunate coincidence, deduced and sensed a scientific principle later proven true by modern science. The fact that they hit on something that has now been proven to be true is a fortunate coincidence, does not diminish the power of their thinking, nor does it confirm who was correct or incorrect in their deductive powers about the physical world. In my view, Epicurus is worthy of consideration not as a soothsayer, but as a logician who bucked the tide of ancient metaphysics and religion, and developed a doctrine that many found to be a fulfilling lifestyle. As Inwood and Gerson write in The Epicurus Reader, The Four Point Cure (via Philodemus’ reporting) is: Don’t fear God, Don’t worry about death; What is good is easy to get, and What is terrible is easy to endure.

Do our learned friends here take issue with the following discussion by DeWitt? Please be specific and explain why the below is inapposite to this thread.

I ask because the posts discussed earlier are overwhelming me. The following comments and quotations in DeWitt seem to respond to the original query in this thread.

“EVIDENCES FROM SPECIFIC CONTEXT
In the extant texts of Epicurus the term prolepsis occurs four times
in a specific context. The first has reference to the divine nature and the
second and third to justice; the fourth applies to the concept of time.” P.146 DeWitt

“The discussion of the divine nature is found in the letter to the
youthful Menoeceus.44
It is there declared "that the pronouncements
of the multitude concerning the gods are not anticipations (prolepseis)
but false assumptions."” p.146

“The second and third examples of the term prolepsis are found in
Authorized Doctrines 37 and 38; the topic is justice. Just as in the case
of the divine nature, the first requisite is to discern the essential attribute
or attributes. It is Nature that furnishes the norm and implants in men
the embryonic notion or prolepsis of justice in advance of all experience.
Hence it is called "the justice of Nature," as in Doctrine 31: "The justice
of Nature is a covenant of advantage to the end that men shall not injure
one another nor be injured." Setting aside the idea of the covenant,
which is a separate topic,...” p.147

Rolf I hope I'm not abusing a topic, but I committed myself to reading DeWitt. DeWitt is hard reading for me, because he is constantly on both the offense and the defense.

Anyway, FYI if you choose to read more, in his chapter: VIII SENSATIONS, ANTICIPATIONS, AND FEELINGS, he gets into a discussion of Prolepsis at p. 143 under the topic of Anticipations of Epicurus' thought.