Posts by DavidN

But to the actual topic I agree with the general direction of the thread, that with practice we should gain some control over our own emotional state, but that extreme circumstances can and do disrupt this. However I would suggest that if you find yourself anxious about the state of the world, that unless the chaos has reached your doorstep, you take Epicurus advice and stop doom scrolling... I mean retreat from the clamor of public life. I find 99% of news feeds to be Narratives devoid of facts anyways. I generally have to be really interested in a topic if I'm going to dig around and find enough facts to piece together a coherent picture.

Quote from Martin

This is the case while we are fully conscious with properly functioning mind. However, while we are asleep and therefore our ability to use logic is turned off, they can temporarily come back.

Wait your waking and sleeping states are different. When I used to work drilling my sleep deprivation would get so bad I'd dream with my eyes open. I occasionally start to dream while I'm still half conscious as-well. And whenever my dreams become coherent and are more than just a random shuffling of sensations I'm generally fully aware that I'm dreaming, and can choose to wake or continue with the dream. When I was a child I literally killed all my nightmares, took alot of work to gain that much control over my dream state but now it's pretty easy. All it took was the suggestion from my father that I could control my dreams, and I was off to hunt my monsters. Sometimes I'll get annoyed with the irrational parts of my dreams and think to myself 'well that doesn't make any sense' and then go about editing out the nonsensical junk. Though generally I don't like to use that much energy when I'm suppose to be resting so I just go with the flow as long as it's tolerable.

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.

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.