Posts by Rolf

I generally agree with your last post Dave, but I think it’s important to note that there’s a difference between conscious skepticism (which I agree is healthy), and not being able to trust anything. The latter is the issue being discussed here.

Quote from Kalosyni

Reflecting on that chart, and the implication that everything will soon go to "hell in a hand-basket"... I was thinking that as long as everyone maintains their employment and has money, and the money maintains its value, and there is enough food in the grocery stores, then everything goes okay. But if there ever comes a time with widespread unemployment, worthless money, and no food...then that is a big problem.

At this point, I’d say AI taking our jobs is one of the smaller concerns. As Don and Cassius mentioned, the massive amount of realistic AI-generated content (articles, images, deepfake videos) flooding the internet is making it more and more difficult to discern what is real and what isn’t. In the past month or two alone I’ve noticed more and more people accusing others of using AI to write their online posts. Not only is the deceptive AI content a problem, but also the growing radical skepticism that results. When people don’t know what they can trust, and can no longer have faith in one another, justice and social ties collapse.

Drive safe Dave!

I’ll respond to all these fantastic responses more in depth tomorrow, but for now I just wanted to mention how much I appreciate that Epicurean philosophy is grounded in everyday reality.

Regardless of all the abstract reasoning I’m engaging in while trying to understand this point, the final judge is the senses and what I’m actually experiencing. I know and I can see clearly that a life of nothing but bread and water would leave me unsatisfied, despite my hunger and thirst being satiated. It is obvious to me that the pleasure of trimming my fingernails is not equivalent to the pleasure of dancing with friends.

So despite my confusion here, I don’t doubt for a second the validity of the philosophy. I can be sure of this because the conclusions align with what I actually experience - the proof is in the pudding.

Even while figuring out how the clock works, I can be sure that the time it displays is accurate.

Great response Cassius. That said, I feel we may be talking past each other a little.

1) I don’t hold anti-natalist views, and I haven’t done for years. I don’t see it as my philosophical base whatsoever.

And more importantly,

2) I had absolutely zero knowledge of Epicureanism before coming here. My confusion here does not stem from the mainstream false interpretations of Epicurus. I hadn’t read Cicero or Plutarch, nor had I read any inaccurate modern accounts of Epicurean philosophy. While people like Cicero and Plutarch seemed to have wilfully distorted Epicurus’ words, my questions about the philosophy come from a place of organic confusion. This matters because it means that I’m not struggling to break away from some prior false interpretation of the texts, but instead I’m trying to understand things from a fairly neutral standpoint. Your argument seems to focus a lot on disproving Cicero and Plutarch’s falsehoods, which I already disagree with, rather than independently clarifying the Epicurean view.

I mention these points to help clarify my confusion.

Another one: How would you respond to confusion about absence of pain in a single clear and concise paragraph?

Will read through above response when I get home. For now, just wanted to add another question that points to this issue: Why do we seek variation of pleasure? Why should we seek variation of pleasure?

Thanks for your reply Cassius! Would it be accurate to say then that once our basic (natural necessary) desires are satisfied, it is no longer pain or lack that drives us to pleasure but pleasure itself?

I feel this sort of relates to the question I posed a little while ago about why we should pursue unnecessary desires if necessary desires are enough. Epicurus was, among other things, a researcher of human behaviour. Why is it that we still pursue superfluous pleasurable sensations once we have reached the limit of pleasure (absence of pain)?

To be very clear, I don’t disagree with the conclusions here. But the fact that the clock displays the correct time is not enough for me - I must know how it ticks!

To put my confusion in other terms: I feel I have all the pieces scattered in my mind, but am having trouble putting them together concisely and cleanly.

Listening now, nice to hear from Don!
————
“Animals don’t just sit and do nothing after they’ve eaten, drank, slept. They fly around and play and sing.”

Why is this not a good argument against the Epicurean view of pleasure/absence of pain? If the animals have satiated all of their desires/removed all of their pain, should they not sit around and do nothing at that point?

Is it because boredom is a pain? Is it because they’re working to ensure that their pleasure continues and protect themselves against future pains? Is it because pleasure still feels good (and is still the good) even when we have no need of more?

I understand that absence of pain = fullness of pleasure, since the feelings are only two. I understand that “absence of pain” does not exist as some platonic ideal, but is a term pointing to real-world experiences. However, my cogs are still a little stuck on the logic of why we should or want to pursue further pleasures once our hunger and thirst are satiated. I feel I understand the concept but am having trouble holding it succinctly in my mind.

Plugged my thoughts into ChatGPT and it spat this out. Sounds fairly reasonable and, as far as I can tell, accurate. Sharing here as it may be helpful - don't hesitate to correct any inaccuracies.

AI-GENERATED CONTENT BELOW

Epicurean Physics vs. Quantum Mechanics

1. Atoms and chance
   • Epicurus posited that atoms move mostly according to necessity (deterministic paths) but occasionally swerve, introducing chance.
   • Quantum mechanics shows that subatomic particles behave probabilistically, which is essentially a modern analog of the “swerve.”
2. Predictable macroscopic world
   • Epicurus also observed that the world we experience is stable and predictable—trees grow where they should, apples remain apples.
   • Quantum randomness does not contradict this, because macroscopic objects are composed of immense numbers of particles, and the tiny uncertainties cancel out statistically.
3. Chance and necessity coexist
   • Both Epicurus and quantum mechanics support the idea that some events happen by necessity, some by chance.
   • Macroscopic determinism emerges from microscopic indeterminacy, meaning our everyday life remains reliable and intelligible.
4. No need for mystical forces
   • Quantum mechanics doesn’t imply supernatural or arbitrary interventions—it’s just nature behaving probabilistically at small scales.
   • This aligns with Epicurus’ insistence that all phenomena are natural and understandable through observation and reason.

Thanks for the reply Cassius. I feel I may be a bit lost in the weeds... From the way you describe things, it doesn't seem like the observable and verifiable aspects of quantum physics and modern physics in general contradict Epicurean physics at all, beyond some changing terminology (eg. "atom" referring to the smallest indivisible substance). Quantum indeterminacy seems to align well with the idea that some things happen by chance rather than necessity or choice.

Bryan- could you clarify exactly which aspects of modern physics you disagree with? I'm totally with you on not taking abstract speculation as scientific fact, but of the things that are observable and experimentally verified, which do you feel contradict Epicurean physics?

I’m loving all the frank speech in here! It’s so important.

Quote from Bryan

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.

I’m the furthest from an expert, but isn’t there physical, observable proof for quantum physics? Do you deny the validity of all quantum theory? One example I’m vaguely familiar with is the double slit experiment, which shows that particles are not always solid particles but also waves.

What about things like nuclear fusion and fission where mass (particles) is transformed into energy? Doesn’t this contradict the Epicurean view that matter is eternal and indestructible?

How could quantum computers exist and function if the underlying quantum mechanics were false? Does the probabilistic and indeterminate nature of these computations not contradict the Epicurean view that reality is wholly knowable and predictable?

To be clear, I don’t disagree with the Epicurean conclusion that we ultimately have to verify and validate our abstract hypotheses using our senses. Regardless of someone dialectically proving to me that ice is hot, I’m still going to trust that it feels cold. At the same time, I am a strong believer in looking at things with a critical and uncompromising gaze. This isn’t radical skepticism, it’s getting to the bottom of things and finding truth, just as Epicurus himself did. If somebody presents physical, observable, repeatable evidence for something that contradicts my worldview, I’d be a fool to not at least consider it. Blind acceptance and rejection is the domain of supernatural religion. This isn’t me blindly rejecting epicurean physics in favour of whatever I read in science articles, but asking honest questions about things I’m genuinely unsure about.

I was a big fan of Benatar and antinatalism as a teenager. How things can change…

That said, I have less grievances with antinatalism than with, say, Christianity. At the very least, antinatalists want to minimise pain. And while they “throw the baby out with the bathwater”, the method of not creating kids in the first place is rationally sound - not being born is nothing to worry about, just as being dead is nothing to worry about - unlike the methods supernatural religions promote for the cessation of suffering. Most antinatalists I’ve spoken to have been depressed and cynical, yet generally rational, people.

Besides, it’s not like Epicureanism is an inherently pro-natalist philosophy. Epicurus never told us to “be fruitful and multiply”. As far as I’m aware, it’s fairly neutral on the question of whether or not we should procreate.

Quote from Cassius

Despite my regard for Martin, I would nicely but firmly 100% reject each of those conclusions, and never lose a moments sleep concerned that any new discovery has already or would arise to prove the opposite. I think what we are discussing is very much the situation Epicurus found himself in 2000 years ago, and it will very likely remain the situation 2000 years from now.

While I generally agree with your conclusions here Cassius, I have to ask: What makes you so certain? What is it that allows you to have faith in the physics of Epicurus but not the physics of certain modern scientists, even when they have a higher degree of expertise than you?

I’m playing devil’s advocate slightly here but I feel it’s vitally important that we have an answer to this.

Quote from Cassius

no intentional teleology for the way humanity should live other than that which we are given through pleasure and pain.

This is the key point for me.

Quote from Cassius

most of the advocates of quantum and other experimentation seem to be atheists

While this is likely true in a literal sense, I wouldn’t underestimate the trend of “quantum woo” or “quantum mysticism”. I’ve encountered many people online who use their interpretations of quantum theory to argue absurd claims, such as the idea that there is some kind of higher level of existence we must escape to.

Great write up Cassius! I really enjoyed listening in on the physics discussion today and I’d love to see a meeting dedicated to the topic. Special thanks to Bryan and Martin.

I like your style, Ernesto - welcome!

Quote from Charles

A shop on Etsy sells more "authentic" copies of some busts of Epicurus made of marble. Though they are quite pricy. I have one.

https://www.etsy.com/shop/Historica…_query=epicurus

Wow, these are beautiful.

Enjoy your birthday Robert ! It’s been great having you around.