Posts by DavidN

First off I'd like to point out that most people who point to quantum physics do not actually apply it properly, and secondly that ALOT of it is not hard science but theoretical. So the author is basing assumption on assumptions. Mathematicians (Theoretical Physicists) in-particular love a deterministic universe because it makes maths easier when they don't have to account for any variations, it's the reason for short cuts like the blackbody.

As to whether or not determinism is Epicurean, it is not. I'm just gonna end this now, with a single statement. So long as we accept that the swerve exists, determinism does not. In fact this is the very purpose of the swerve to free us from the tyranny of determinists.

You can look at modern determinism, ethically, from 2 points of view, neither of which I like, nor should be advocated by any rational person.

First the Victimhood argument. That people are not responsible for their actions because of -insert any irrational emotion based argument here- and since it's all predetermined by said factor we should let them get away with whatever terrible behavior they are engaged in because they have no choice. When the opposite should be true for any rational being. If we know that factor x in our life may push us toward an undesirable outcome, we should adjust our-self accordingly to avoid said outcome. IE If you are predisposed to addictive behavior you should avoid alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc. Not doing so is a choice, no one puts a drink in your hand, unless someone actually did then you need to get better friends.

Secondly the Facist argument. The idea that behavioral genetics can identify undesirable elements and since we are just biological machines that cannot deviate from our programming those people should be treated as guilty and removed from society before they have a chance to cause harm.

Determinism is inherently nihilistic, in that your happiness is not in your control but predetermined, which is contrary to literally everything that Epicurus taught.

While traveling down the rabbit hole I found this gem, part of an interesting early Empirical model using inductive rather than deductive reasoning. Thought it useful since Epicurus was often accused of redefining words.

Idola fori (singular Idolum fori), sometimes translated as "Idols of the Market Place" or "Idols of the Forum", are a category of logical fallacy which results from the imperfect correspondences between the word definitions in human languages, and the real things in nature which these words represent. The term was coined in Latin by Sir Francis Bacon and used in his Novum Organum, one of the earliest treatises arguing the case for the logic and method of modern science.

That was my thought.

Quote from Cassius

militant epicureanism

I'm curious about this translation. I imagine it's something along the lines of rigorous or serious, but who knows with the Italians, maybe they are raising an army.

Do you know if they had transcripts made for the event, even if they're untranslated might still be interesting to have.

12.15-13.00 E. EPICUREAN LIFESTYLE
Chair: Christos Yapijakis – Antonis Bilisis
The theological elements of Epicurean Philosophy

I'd be interested in a transcript of this.

Dimitriadis is the head of the garden in Thessaloniki isn't he. I've only heard a few referring remarks to the subject. But I do have one of his books that I haven't been able to get to yet. It's pretty far down my list too so not gonna get to it soon.

One could also argue the opposite, that many people hang onto unhealthy toxic relationships when they shouldn't . That like all other aspects of Epicurean philosophy we should strike a healthy balance. It doesn't mean we abandon a friend in times of trouble, but it means that we choose carefully who we count as friends. That the mutual advantage in friendship lies in the character or virtues of each participant which greatly outweighs changing circumstances. I know I can find supporting quotes for this but I need to go make some lunch.

Meet Ninon de L'Enclos

My dearest Readers, In honor of my School of Gallantry Series, I decided to introduce all of you to the inspiration behind Madame de Maiten...

delilahmarvelle.blogspot.com

For someone who didn't believe in romatic love, Lenclos only ever took one lover at a time, even if she had a string of them. I believe there is a difference between the "romatic" love of poets and the emotional connections of love in reality, you can call them whatever you will but they do exist.

Wow how funny I just posted about Lenclos on another thread.

Darwin doesn't have to be a plagiarist to have been influenced by epicureanism. For instance Voltaire came to Epicureanism through his godmother and benefactor, Ninon DeLenclos, a modern day Leontion. Throughout his life Voltaire was associated with Madamoiselle L'Enclos, there isn't a doubt in my mind that her salon had some influence on his mind and philosophy.

Lenclos, Ninon de | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

As Nate already pointed out Darwin's grandfather was a Libertine, however "IF" Charles had plagiarized anyone it had been his grandfather, who had worked extensively on the subject of evolution already. Though in Charles defense it was Erasmus' Epicurean poetry that doomed his scientific career, leaving an opening for Charles to pick up where he had left off.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1d8e/9446252ddb7c5f2b2938dc03e85269e38c53.pdf

Death being a multifaceted event I find it to be intellectually dishonest for anyone truly interested in philosophy to take the stance that Epicurus writing a will would be hypocritical. Epicurus writings tackles the fear of death from multiple angles, fear of the gods, of pain in the afterlife, and the loss of those close to us. So why would it be hypocritical to write a will, such an act would alleviate anxiety about those we care about after we're gone. In such a will would be entirely consistent with his teachings. If death and taxes are all that is certain in this world, should we not prepare for the one as we do the other?

I'm glad were still having this conversation, as a suggestion to Nate and everyone here. These questions that are being asked are best asked now, here amongst friends, rather than by others that are less friendly to Epicurus. Whatever your views may be it is sound policy to be able to defend them. Even if you don't care to defend them to others you at least need to be able to defend them to yourself. Instead of taking anything said here to personally we should see this thread as a chance to learn, even if we all don't agree.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from smoothiekiwi

If a friendship will produce more pain in the long run (although that seems difficult to achieve), then we should end it, or at least de-attach us.

Or conclude either that (1) it is not a friendship at all, or (2) our definition of friendship needs reworking.

Agreed, even the Vatican sayings have a passage about toxic friendships. I don't think it unreasonable to expect your friends to be as good at being a friend as you are, so long as you forgive circumstance, as a good friend should.

In reply to Cicero that we cultivate friendships with an eye to gains and benefits and advantages I would reply with VS39, that this is an oversimplification of a complicated subject and as stated is without merit. As he continues with can there really be any: doubt that we shall prefer our estates and our house-rents to our friends? I would reply with VS44-45 that a friend who is self sufficient is greater than property, as property managed unwisely is dependent on external circumstance, and to Cicero's final comment I'd continue with Philodemus comment on charity in his work on economics. That friendship is our insurance against fortune. In summary I would say that we do not seek friendship for its material advantage but for the pleasure it brings us, but that we should be able to count on a friend, especially a wise friend, to offer us comfort in difficult times. As Cicero himself found after the death of his daughter.

VS 39. Neither he who is always seeking material aid from his friends nor he who never considers such aid is a true friend; for one engages in petty trade, taking a favor instead of gratitude, and the other deprives himself of hope for the future.
VS 44. The wise man who has become accustomed to necessities knows better how to share with others than how to take from them, so great a treasure of self-sufficiency has he found.
VS 45. The study of nature does not create men who are fond of boasting and chattering or who show off the culture that impresses the many, but rather men who are strong and self-sufficient, and who take pride in their own personal qualities not in those that depend on external circumstances.

“To share all their wealth freely inspired by his confidence in the adequacy of few possessions and assisted by the discourses of the sage that the Wiseman administers these goods in such a manner is a consequence the fact that he has acquired and continues to acquire friends. Their needs and pleasure figure prominently in his calculations concerning his monthly and yearly expenses, the distribution of his income and the manner in which he provides for the future.” Philodemus

Ya some of those differences in translation are crazy. I prefer the more active one, being helpful, as it seems to be the more useful translation and aligns with philodemus comments on charity.

“To share all their wealth freely inspired by his confidence in the adequacy of few possessions and assisted by the discourses of the sage that the Wiseman administers these goods in such a manner is a consequence the fact that he has acquired and continues to acquire friends”

I like and agree with most of what you put forward, but coming from a technical field I do have to comment on models. I can't count how many hours I've wasted arguing with engineers about how a reactor works in their model and how its performing in reality. As if reality is wrong because it doesn't match his model, and because of this it's become one of my main gripes with current scientific culture as well. As far as I'm concerned until you test your model against reality it isn't worth the silicon it's written on. Which is also why I share Epicurus reservations about math and his elevation of sensory evidence. E.G. My chemical engineers models may say that these two chemicals are compatible in the same dosing line but my sensory observations of the situation tell me a completely different story. I don't know how or why they're crystallizing and clogging the line, I'm not a chemist, but they are. Or I've watched engineers "improve" there modeling and change the chemical feed ratios to improve the bottom line, pushing the safety tolerance of the metallurgy but making management happy. However changing the model doesn't change or negate the reality of the metallurgy of the reactors, and when people choose to believe models over sensory evidence you end up with a burned out reactor.

I don't know enough about the detailed political environment of the late roman republic to comment specifically to it, however I do frame all of my political arguments and investigations with the iron law of oligarchy. With this criterion alone I could see that Caesar may have seen himself as a reformer of a corrupt system, who then fell to the same affliction himself. Leading me to believe that both men may have been exercising epicureanism as the situation appeared to them. However this is all assumption, I'd have to do alot more research to arrive at position I felt strongly enough to advocate.

The iron law of oligarchy developed Robert Michels in his book Political Parties. It asserts that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an "iron law" within any democratic organization as part of the "tactical and technical necessities" of organization. Michels stated that the official goal of representative democracy of eliminating elite rule was impossible, that representative democracy is a façade legitimizing the rule of a particular elite, and that elite rule, which he refers to as oligarchy, is inevitable.

"It is organization which gives dominion of the elected over the electors. [...] Who says organization, says oligarchy."

"Historical evolution mocks all the prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy."

Quote from Peter Konstans

We should think in those terms: 'what can we do so that Epicureanism will survive our own demise and the demise of our descendants and the demise of the descendants of our descendants and so on and so on ad infinitum?' I think that calling Epicureanism a religion is a good strategy to get us there so I see Nate's attitude in a positive light. He is right to suggest that Epicurus took piety (and a certain sensual restraint I would add) seriously. In this respect he was as far removed from being a LaVeyan figure as he was from being a protestant preacher.

Plutarch tells us that Epicurus (against the counsel of most sages) saw nothing wrong with seeking sexual relations while being an old man and we can infer that he encouraged it. For all his ill-will I see no good reason not to accept this testimony by Plutarch as authentic. This alone tells us that Epicurus was not a traditional moralist which is an important point because traditional ideas of virtue propagated by most sages were closely linked with respect for popular religion.

That being said, I think Epicurus would have endorsed plenty of the Delphic Maxims. The problem with counterculture-type hedonism and individualism is that it attracts people who are not willing to work seriously and make sacrifices. If we allow Epicureanism to attract those types in large numbers we will perish in the long run. Epicurus, who had organizational talent, must have understood that personal moral quality matters. I would also suggest that we avoid people attracted to mysticism.

Calling Epicureanism a religion is not enough. It has to become an actual organization with rights and responsibilities; with a division of labor, duties and rewards. In other words a formal structure like the Garden is needed, headed by a 'gardener-in-chief' and his close associates. Once again, every precaution must be taken to deter anarchist types who just want to drink and have sex. Absent that, Epicureanism will not survive long. I suspect that a huge reason why ancient Epicureanism didn't survive to Late Antiquity is because it attracted more pleasure-consumers than pleasure-workers. Epicurus would have sacrificed his life for his friends. We need people that are capable of doing the same in a crisis.

That is still not enough. In my view it is important to become completely intolerant towards other religions and traditions. It is important to fight them and to mock them mercilessly and to never desist in doing so. History shows that political and religious traditions that allow or worse put a premium on tolerance do not survive long. Now this is my own personal view. The majority here probably disagree with me and that's fine.

I don't think centralized hierarchical structures are compatible with Epicureanism. Self-suficiency, being an epicurean virtue, is increasingly stifled the more centralized and top heavy power structures becomes. I also don't agree with your analysis of the decline of epicureanism in late antiquity, from what I've read most scholars think that in the face of environmental and societal changes the appeal of Epicureanism to the general populis declined.

Quote from Pacatus

Thoughts on Organization

The following are loosely adapted (and stripped down) from the “twelve traditions” perspective of AA and other 12-step groups:

1. The Epicurean Community (the “Garden”) exists for the common well-being and happiness of its members, as founded in Epicurean philosophy and based in friendship.
   
   
2. There is only one authority for the Community, and that is the Canon,* as it has evolved and is actively interpreted by the Community members themselves.
   
   
3. The only requirement for membership is the sincere desire to learn and apply Epicurean philosophy personally in one’s life, according to one’s own circumstances and understanding.
   
   There are no “loyalty oaths” or “pledges of allegiance” required.
   
   
4. The Epicurean Community is a community, not an institution. Hierarchical structure should be minimized – while recognizing leadership roles such as “administrator” or “monitor” or “secretary” and the like (for in-person as well as online groups and meetings) as necessary for the functioning of the Community.
   
   
5. Although professionals in various disciplines (such as philosophy, sociology, physics, neuro-science and the like) may have much value to add to the understanding of Epicurean philosophy – especially its application in modern times – the Garden is not a professional association, but a community of like-minded people, all of whom have a voice.
   
   With that said, individual members have varied areas of expertise (such as translation) and levels of knowledge pertaining to the philosophy itself, which ought to be acknowledged and respected.
   
   
6. No dues or membership fees should be required (as this might effectively deter from membership some who sincerely desire to learn and apply Epicurean philosophy). But voluntary contributions may be openly welcomed as needed to support the practical functioning of the Community – so long as they are not used to create a “ranked hierarchy” of membership status on that basis.
   
   This is not to preclude membership designations based on such things as participation in the Community.
   
   
7. Both the Community (as a group) and individual members may pursue outreach activities for the purpose of bringing Epicurean philosophy to as wide an audience as possible. But members who prefer to remain anonymous as such, outside the Community, should have that anonymity honored and protected by all in the Community.
   
   
8. No member of the Community should ever, in such a way as to implicate the Community (or pretend to speak on its behalf), express any opinion outside on such controversial issues as those of partisan politics or sectarian religion.
   
   (Anyone may, of course, express their personal understanding of how Epicurean philosophy informs their opinions on such matters – while taking care not to implicate the Community or its other members.)
   
   
9. All discourse among members should be characterized by civility, respect and friendliness – even (and especially) where strong opinions differ.

++++++++++++++++

* “Canon” here could include all of the “classical” Epicurean corpus – such as Lucretius; or only the extant works attributed to Epicurus himself, with others included as “classical” interpreters.

+++++++++++++++

These are my thoughts – but I would not argue them, or make an issue out of any of them. I’m just, personally, not that strongly wedded to the question.

Display More

I think this applies more to a discussion group like what we already have, an actually community requires ownership, skin in the game on the part of the community members. As this is an area of interest of mine I have a section in my notes for development of a community in general not necessarily focused on epicureanism that should be applicable if the time every came. Firstly I would point to the historical hierarchy of epicurean communities, having founders and scholarchs. whatever that role may entail I do not currently suppose. Beyond this I have quite a few sections of notes from studying modern intentional community organizational structures, and membership. As much as our strong independence streak may lead us all to desire a situation devoid of hierarchy or that is completely egalitarian, my studies on the subject would suggest that in reality this simply isn't sustainable. But compatible distributive hierarchical systems do exist that give greater stability and utility, without imposing on members self-sufficiency more than is necessary to form, organize, coordinate and maintain community. I think one of these or some adaptation thereof would eventual serve well in the formation of an epicurean community. I would go into deeper detail on the subject but I am not currently in that mindset to dig into those notes.

That being said section 8. is a given, I would say any Epicurean community should refrain from playing politics, except in general conceptual terms.