Posts by DavidN

VS 64 The esteem of others is outside our control; we must attend instead to healing ourselves.

The thing about the language models is that they're just a math equations with assigned linguistic assignments. So as they go along parcing out they're sentences the math side is looking for the most likely continuation of the sentence or paragraph. So what ever the model was trained on led it to believe that that was the most likely sequence of words. It was likely trained on a whole collection of philosophical works aswell as "the Pile". I had at one point considered doing the same thing, training an epicurean chat bot and seeing what it would output. But honestly I'm really disappointed with the reliability of the data coming out of the current models. From what I've seen it will be another 3-4 full evolutions of the tech before it's really reliable. Right now it's more like a parlor trick than a real tool.

Quote from Pacatus

While working on my Philodemus poem, I just stumbled on the book The Epigrams of Philodemos: Introduction, Text, and Commentary by David Sider. Now I feel the need to read it before continuing. But, in the early pages, he broaches a very interesting topic: that the relationship between various sub-schools of Epicureanism was not all peace and light. Philodemus was loyal to his teacher Zeno of Sidon, and engaged in “much internecine polemic” with the Epicureans of Rhodes (where Philodemus may have also studied for awhile).

I think I've seen this before, I think while I was studying Virgil. I don't remember were it was I saw it but I think Zeno was credited with maintaining proper adherence to "orthodox" epicurean practices and teachings. Something like that I was just skimming it. Let us know what you find.

And for Kalosyni "I shall not be able to distinguish between what is desirable and what is to be avoided! I am ashamed! Old men as we are, dealing with a problem so serious, we make play of it! ‘Mouse’ is a syllable. Now a mouse eats its cheese; therefore, a syllable eats cheese.”

Ya I enjoyed Seneca, To Cassius original point for this post maybe Seneca can offer this:

Would you really know what philosophy offers to humanity? Philosophy offers counsel. Death calls away one man, and poverty chafes another; a third is worried either by his neighbor’s wealth or by his own. So-and-so is afraid of bad luck; another desires to get away from his own good fortune. Some are ill-treated by men, others by the gods. Why, then, do you frame for me such games as these? It is no occasion for jest; you are retained as counsel for unhappy men, sick and the needy, and those whose heads are under the poised axe. Whither are you straying? What are you doing? This friend, in whose company you are jesting, is in fear. Help him, and take the noose from about his neck. Men are stretching out imploring hands to you on all sides; lives ruined and in danger of ruin are begging for some assistance; men’s hopes, men’s resources, depend upon you. They ask that you deliver them from all their restlessness, that you reveal to them, scattered and wandering as they are, the clear light of truth. Tell them what nature has made necessary, and what superfluous; tell them how simple are the laws that she has laid down, how pleasant and unimpeded life is for those who follow these laws, but how bitter and perplexed it is for those who have put their trust in opinion rather than in nature.

Now that I'm reading it again I can see how some might take a missionary attitude towards epicureanism, though I think I prefer the synonym Revivalist. Either way hope this helps with your new years resolution.

Quote from BrainToBeing

AI will push the issue. If we allow it to go forward then it will demonstrate what science would advocate. Then humans will either destroy it (go to war with it, which is our penchant), or many humans will be made obsolete by it (creating huge social upheaval).

The only graceful way forward is to hope the human brain will be capable of adapting to now. That, unfortunately, remains a pertinent question.

I can put you at ease on this one, being that my first degree was in AI. Specifically a major in computer science with a minor in philosophy with a focus on learning. True AI isn't possible with the current technologies we have deployed. On a hardware level you need to either redevelop analog computing, or quantum computing and then on a software level you would need to get away from the limitations of binary code. Much like fusion power it could be decades or more before a real breakthru in true AI. But if you read the news it's always right around the corner.

Quote from Cassius

I have edited the title of the thread to make it more clear that "Live Unknown" falls under the same label of "misunderstanding" as does 'tranquility" as being Epicurus' primary focus. Both are tools toward pleasure, not ends in themselves. Possibly over time we'll find news ways to indicate "Caution!" as to outside articles that we discuss.

Isn't "tranquility" also a form of pleasure, being the absence of turmoil, and thus is part of the goal but not the whole goal, as Epicurus encourages us to seek out a variety of pleasures.

Though I do agree living unknown is a tool or tactic not a goal, it is simply a means to avoid external turmoil.

"Meantime, you are engaged in making of yourself the sort of person in whose company you would not dare to sin. When this aim has been accomplished and you begin to hold yourself in some esteem, I shall gradually allow you to do what Epicurus, in another passage, suggests: “The time when you should most of all withdraw into yourself is when you are forced to be in a crowd.” Seneca's Letters

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote

"May you do well," and "Live well."

"Live long and prosper" -Spock

I loved Kalosyni's response, the only thing I would add is I see the appeal to "meaning" often from religious or spiritual practitioners when faced with the idea that there beliefs might be wrong. That without this or that life has no "meaning", that in order for them to be happy, for some reason, they need "meaning" outside of themselves. I've never liked this line of logic, it's like an ego defense mechanism, that you must be wrong because the "meaning" I've devoted my life to doesn't fit within your world view. I've always responded that Life is meaning, that is to say life does not require some external meaning and nor do I. I derive all the "meaning" I need from life. And philosophy to me is a search for how to live that life better. Which is why I'm here.

“You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din."

Quote from Godfrey

To digress, a reason to study Epicurus, in particular, is that he's something of the "missing link" of western philosophy. I was put off by Platonism, Aristotelianism and monotheism and looked for a time to the eastern philosophies for a more suitable conception of "the way things are". When I discovered that there was someone who based his philosophy on atomism over 2000 years ago, I was quite astounded.

In Epicurus I've found a gateway to many things, not least of which is a coherent, modern worldview. Studying the ancients is useful not only as a historical relic, but as the starting point of much of modern thought and a clearer understanding of how we as a society came to understand our place in the world. Without this basis I find it quite difficult, if not impossible, to make sense of the threads of philosophical discourse going on today.

Have you read: Epicureanism at the Origins of Modernity

Catherine Wilson https://academic.oup.com/book/12521?login=false

What I pondered as I read about early scientists and philosophers taking what they liked from what remained of the epicurean body of work, was what did they leave behind? They would take the science and neglect the ethics. Epicureanism is a complete system and that is what I find is missing from the world today, to go back to the original question.

It may have been understandable for Descartes to want to play at Epicurean science without losing his Christianity, or his head. But this is no longer the case today, we are free to mix ethics and science and try to discover better ways of living. This is why I believe Epicureanism still has alot to teach us and shouldn't simply be discarded as a relic. It is not only what they found that matters but how they came to their conclusions that matters, I think the Epicurean Canon has somethings over the way modern science is practiced along the lines of what Bryan said earlier in the thread.

It often comes from the contemporary religions crowd, the whole thou shalt thing.

I'd agree with Don's caution, Catherine Wilson wrote "If the incorporeal of res cognitans of Descartes, the un-extended immortal monads of Leibniz, the world in the mind of Berkeley are salient concepts in the history of modern philosophy, this is chiefly because we are all, in a sense, epicureans now."

We have to recognize the distinction between those that choose to be Epicurean or those who have stolen or inherited our ideals. Many of the founding fathers read Lucretius as part of a classical education, but only Jefferson declared himself an Epicurean.

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote from DavidN

As far as the question "is it a religion" to me goes. Does it take the place of a contemporary religion in your daily life? IE Does it inform your sense of morality and justice, do you draw comfort or strength from it's teachings? Do you endeavor to live as an Epicurean or is it just a discussion topic, would be the dividing line for me.

It is coming to me, that there can be lots of ways that one could decide to refer to how they feel about Epicurean philosophy...and now the idea of "life philosophy" is popping into my head...or "world view" -- and probably the benefit of deciding on a particular label is that if you want to talk about it to a friend who doesn't know anything about it, then you could use your chosen label to convey what you feel about it. And I could imagine that if one said it was a religion, then their friend would be asking different questions than if one said "life philosophy" but everyone can choose to go there or not, depending on how they feel.

And I do think you'd have two slightly divergent groups if one group says "we have a church and this is a religion" compared to "we have a life philosophy, and this is a practice group".

Or I often think about it as if someone were to ask me what my religion is or if I have a religion how I would respond. Definitely not as neatly as a catholic or other mainstream religious person could, nor do I consider myself to simply be atheist, I might reply that I'm Deist or Agnostic but that feels incomplete to me. I might say that Epicurean philosophy takes the place in my life that religion would, though many may not see it as an exact replacement for religion it appears functional enough to me, and if I ever get a job that lets you take religious holidays off I'll get to take every 20th off.

Moral Universalism

Moral universalism refers to the idea of a (absolute) moral truth and a single pattern (a.k.a. universal rule) of action acknowledged as good or right by all…

link.springer.com

This looks like the best definition as I've seen it being applied.

Quote from Peter Konstans

How would an Epicurean society raise and educate its kids? Since school is so horrendously boring, tedious and unpleasant to children (school is also the only place other than prison where people are quite likely to be bullied and tortured) how would an Epicurean society deal with the problem of educating the new generation?

I would point out that your talking specifically about post-industrial education, classical and agrarian educational programmes are quite different. And anyone who thinks that bullying is limited to schools and prison hasn't had the opportunity to work in a toxic environment, I have had the great fortune to work in them both literally and figuratively, there not fun but they are educational. So I guess there is a common theme.

Quote from Peter Konstans

I think it's fair to think of ancient Epicureans as de facto atheists the way Plutarch thought of them. The acceptance of the existence of the gods whether honestly or pretentiously was useful in a social context where atheism were discriminated against and associated with a significant degree of social exclusion. Today we often use the term 'social exclusion' lightly and synonymously with 'unfairness' and everybody feels brave enough to 'fight' social discrimination in all its forms but in a pre-modern agrarian society social exclusion meant your very survival was at stake. Why would someone not want to participate in the sacrifices and share in the meat? In the early modern era the Catholic Church tended to regard the beliefs of deists as little more than a damage control cover for atheism and they were basically right. Today deism has essentially disappeared because no damage control is necessary.

I've never liked this argument, there is I believe enough in the surviving texts to suggest that this was not the case. And my personal stance on atheism has always been that the Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and thus prefer an agnostic approach until proven otherwise. Thus I tend to see Atheism as unnecessarily nihilistic. Which I feel is more in line with the teachings of Epicurus.

The concept of value devoid of subject is just a play at universalism. Fun fact I failed my ethics class because I refused to admit that there is any truth to universalism, there's to many paradoxes and real world examples to which universalism simply fails, and I tore apart every argument my professor made for an entire semester, had I discovered Epicurus at the time I would have had even more powerful arguments to throw back at him. Morality can't exist without a subject because it is wholely a human artifact, and can only be applied properly to humanity. You can't apply human morality to lions and gazelle, even dolphins which are arguably the next closest to sentience engage in rape, but can you apply human morality to what is still a wild animal. So the subject not only matters but is essential to the moral argument.

As Tauphi said I'm as much a doctor as I am a rocket but I'm pretty sure that nuerochemicals serve a number of different regulatory purposes and thus can't simply cease to exist. I might even go out on a limb to say that the pleasure aspect might even be secondary to the other regulatory aspects. Though this is all speculative and I'd rather not spend the day trying to verify these claims, which is why I'm not a doctor.

Quote from Joshua

Epicurus is often criticized for his aversion to math. But his real distaste was for the kind of philosophy that used faulty assumptions about math and reason to arrive at conclusions that were divorced from reality.

I have been arguing for a few years now, that theoretical modeling needs to be removed from the sciences if it can never be tested and placed in its own category, or that it needs to be understood in its proper context until it can be tested. To many plebes run around thinking that models are scientific proofs, they are not. I had this same argument with a friend a few weeks ago. I believe as an Epicurean I must keep an open mind to all the reasonable possibilities on a subject until proof is available, and even then one must be open to the chance of error. Especially in todays world with fake news, deep fakes, and politically charged "science". I choose to approach modern "science" with a healthy skepticism.