Search Results

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Fifty-Four of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we'll walk you through the ancient Epicurean texts, and we'll discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where yo…

PD16. In but few things chance hinders a wise man, but the greatest and most important matters, reason has ordained, and throughout the whole period of life does and will ordain. PD22. 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. PD23. If you fight against all sensations, you will have no standard by which to judge even those of them which you say are fal…

Scheduling note: The podcasting team had a good conversation during the last recording session but given the importance of the subject we decided to postpone the recording of the first program on Chapter Seven til our next recording session. We expect to be back on a normal schedule next week.

The main topic was the reading Epicurean theory about the virtue of friendship is not sufficient - we need to take steps to cultivate actual Epicurean friends, first online (since that today is currently the only practical way to do so), and then move next to "real life."

OK my first comment would be that by placing 'CONCEPTION" as one of the three labels on the legs at the far left, you are taking sides (which you may or may not want to do) with Anticipations / Preconceptions BEING THE SAME AS conceptions. DeWitt advocates against that and I think for good reason. Yes that is a very possible reading of Diogenes Laertius, and Bailey uses that word, but most other translators do not. Against that view is Velleius, and to take that position from the beginning would…

Also Joshua topics to be considered here are: 1 - We've been discussing anticipations since the forum started and there likely is not enough evidence to be 100% sure which theory is correct. I personally think that DeWitt is onto something with his "intuition" word, and I think the most persuasive discussions we've had in the past consider words like a faculty of "pattern-recognition" which is not so far from intuition. In this discussion the "images" discussions are critical to include and not …

And one more thing Joshua, I would not set in stone any thoughts on this chapter (Canon, Reason, Nature) until you have read the upcoming chapter (Sensations, Anticipations, Feelings) as they are tightly connected.

(Quote from Joshua) "that late"? Just so I am clear what you are saying, what is your current view of "all sensations are true"? ....this is the Lucretius book iv material we discussed last night: [478] You will find that the concept of the true is begotten first from the senses, and that the senses cannot be gainsaid. For something must be found with a greater surety, which can of its own authority refute the false by the true. Next then, what must be held to be of greater surety than sense? Wi…

Just for the record we were also talking last night about the contrast between Descartes: "I think therefore I am" vs Jefferson: Jefferson to John Adams, August 15, 1820: (Full version at Founders.gov) …. But enough of criticism: let me turn to your puzzling letter of May 12. on matter, spirit, motion etc. It’s crowd of scepticisms kept me from sleep. I read it, and laid it down: read it, and laid it down, again and again: and to give rest to my mind, I was obliged to recur ultimately to my habi…

(Quote from Joshua) Yes I think that's the key. The senses are irrational and do not inject any opinion when they report something. The report what they receive without comment. But no single sensation tells the whole story, nor does a later sensation have the power to say that the first one was "wrong." The key seems to be that all issues of "right" and "wrong" or "true" or "false" are issues that are assembled in the volitional mind, and a large part of all this epistemology we are about to di…

If we don't have a theory that allows us to understand this approach, then that's when we lose confidence in the natural faculties and start looking for other means of understanding the "true world" that is allegedly beyond the reach of our senses. (Quote)

It has always struck me that this sentence seems to be particularly thorny for the translators to make clear. This is Bailey: [500] And if reason is unable to unravel the cause, why those things which close at hand were square, are seen round from a distance, still it is better through lack of reasoning to be at fault in accounting for the causes of either shape, rather than to let things clear seen slip abroad from your grasp, and to assail the grounds of belief, and to pluck up the whole found…

(Quote from Todd) "Corresponding to reality" is exactly the sense in which Dewitt says "true" is NOT meant in the formulation "all sensations are true. His analogy is to a courtroom witness who is testifying "truthfully" as far as he or she was able to see, but due to perspective or some other issue that witness did not see the full big picture. They report without any intent to deceive the raw data that they observe, but they (the witness, or the sense) does not report any "opinion" about what …

Here is DeWitt's article focusing on the subject. I am having trouble getting the Greek word in the summary typed in - if any moderator has the ability to fix that in the description (where I have placed the ________) please do. epicureanfriends.com/wcf/fileb…-all-sensations-are-true/

It's been a long while since I read the article in full but I am expecting both Joshua and you Todd will find yourself in agreement with it. As DeWitt states in the summary, on it's face the statement is absurd, and since we don't usually expect Epicurus to be taking absurd positions, something else must be going on! As often is the case we might not all end up agreeing with DeWitt's precise phrasing, but I think points the way in the right direction. (Quote from Norman DeWitt)

Joshua et al --- it looks like DeWitt updated and shortened his argument in the article and included it in his book starting on page 135 under "Epicurus not an empiricist."

Edit Note: The original post of the DeWitt article has been updated with cite added and some highlighting deleted. Thanks to Todd for catching that.

Thank you Little Rocker! As I read the Hahmann article it seems to me to be largely consistent or at least compatible with the approach DeWitt takes in his article and book. As I read all three the key point seems to be something like that every impression strikes us as "real" from the perspective that it is in fact an impression received by a sense faculty, but that each impression has to be evaluated before our minds can judge any inference from that impression to be "true" or "false" to the f…

It's my understanding that in generic terms that would be exactly what Plato advocated, that the senses are insufficient to give us reliable information about the true world. And I would think in support of that you can cite Diogenes of Oinoanda saying that Epicurus agreed that there is a flux, as D of O attributed to Aristotle, but that Epicurus held the flux not to be so fast that our senses could not apprehend it.

Very interesting and thank you Don! It is almost as if Diogenes Laertius was working from a list of questions that he wanted to address as to every philosopher, and that almost everything that he recorded about Epicurus comes from a desire to add in Epicurus' views to this list of topics that he wanted to cover. And that we could learn a lot by looking at what Diogenes Laertius records from that perspective. If so, that would be entirely consistent with the Nikolsky article and his observation t…