Thomas Jefferson's Religious Beliefs

Quote from Cassius

Logic in the sense of parsing definitions and categories. It's largely a word game until you connect back to emotions / pain / pleasure.

To restate this, I think this is one of the big aspects of the canon of truth. The senses and pain and pleasure (and presumably anticipations) can present something to us on a perceptual level which is repeatable and therefore verifiable from that standpoint. But is there any OTHER standpoint other than this perceptual level at which something can be considered absolutely the same for everyone at all times and places? I doubt that is possible under Epicurean philosophy, and in fact it's probably pretty clear that it is not.

Are all words (even "pain" and pleasure") purely a matter of definition in our conscious minds, that become locked in only when we attach them to a certain set of perceptions? I tend to think so, especially when we consider that different languages use entirely different words for what we consider to be the same things.

But the whole process of language is not really chaotic or random either. We're all wired in similar ways, and take pleasure and pain in similar things, and see, hear, touch, smell, and taste in similar ways. So it would be natural that we might also process perceptions into opinions (and assign those opions labels) in similar ways.

So there can be expected behaviors within certain natural lanes of travel without there being any intent, or providence, or absolute standard giving rise to "absolutes" in these areas.

Or so it would appear to me today.

What crossed my mind after reading this was ultimately nature directs human behavior. So for an explicit example (since I made a joke about this in another thread) Cannibalism is usually considered pretty taboo…today anyway! And is often considered by “most” people to be “wrong” or “evil.” In historical extreme survival situations where death is imminent, humans have resorted to cannibalism. Now the question becomes at what point is cannibalism considered evil and by what standard? Nature or human edict?

Obviously nature directs us not to partake in this activity on any regular basis (humans anyway, animals are another story) but it does sometimes drive people to do things they would otherwise never consider doing. Yet still…will society still judge the act as evil? Though nature directs our behavior and is entirely neutral to the action, it ultimately is the human laws and taboos that decree something is “evil” or “wrong” based then entirely on circumstances which we would need to dissect situation by situation to determine if something “unlawful” happened by societal standards.

A certain Dr. Lecter has appeared as a guest in the forum all of a sudden.

I will say I have also meditated on particular widespread groups that operate outside their own societal laws that perform “evil” acts. Such as the various central and South American cartels and crime syndicates. These people are literally the worst of the worst, and perform acts so heinous it would be a mental labor to describe them or categorize them…by “most” people’s standards they are truly evil. Not unlike other historical groups like certain pirates and even the Vikings fall into this category.

I would otherwise consider crime groups as fringe outliers. However, the sheer numbers of people who associate with them (either by force or choice) illustrate that they are almost communities within larger nations. When I meditate on this I see that these people continue to exist by performing absolutely gruesome acts day by day, and the larger part of the world typically condemns them as evil, however my personal revulsion is not based necessarily on the fact that my own society considers these acts as unlawful nor because of an ad populum argument that because the majority of the world rejects them as wrong or unlawful, I do as well…my own internal instinct tell me it’s “wrong” based on my natural experiences and empathetic reaction. So ultimately this explanation goes against my earlier statement above that we might define evil as purely “unlawful” since I subjectively have a natural revulsion to these acts… so it may not be possible to pin any definition of evil down to one particular source such as culturally unlawful or purely against nature or unnatural, because to the cartel member who is just trying to survive under their own set of circumstances , they are doing what they think is necessary to do so….even if I consider it gruesome, their government considers it unlawful and the majority of the world condemns it, it isn’t “universally wrong” because it is an accepted form of living among a large population of people who consider what they do necessary to survive.

Quote from Matt

Yet still…will society still judge the act as evil?

I have pretty well come to peace with that question myself. What "society" thinks is relevant only insofar as society has the power to punish offenses against its collective decision-making. What "society' concludes is often as inverse to the "truth" of a matter (let's say from the perspective of Epicurus for present discussion) as it is accurate to the truth. Society's opinion is of relevance to lots of things, but not to there being any absolute truth of the matter.

Quote from Cassius

Logic in the sense of parsing definitions and categories. It's largely a word game until you connect back to emotions / pain / pleasure.

But that too begs the question between whether there is any "natural" connection between words and perceptions, and for that we might have to call in Godfrey and Don on visualization issues

There's some discussion of definitions and the Epicurean aversion to them in Philodemus's On Anger. Still digging through it, but it's been interesting. Not ready to report back in yet.

Quote from Cassius

But that too begs the question between whether there is any "natural" connection between words and perceptions, and for that we might have to call in Godfrey and Don on visualization issues

Without any specific cites on hand, I would just speculate that the most "natural" connection between words and perceptions comes from the language and the environment that a person is exposed to in the womb and in infancy.

There is at least one sense in which Epicureanism is "evil" - that, in for example Nietzsche's view, the term "evil" was created to describe precisely any ethical system different from christianity, or from ascetic ideals in general.

It might be better to frame the discussion in terms of "good" vs "bad", or "healthy" vs "unhealthy".

Since we are not explicitly talking about this in terms of Epicurean philosophy, it still might be helpful for us to conceive of where ideas of evil began in history. In theological terms evil is usually associated with some supernatural presence that represents “negative” qualities, darkness or chaos. Either a god or a spirit. Evil deities were prevalent in the myths of the near east and responsible for many human problems. The Persians had Ahriman the dualistic hostile spirit that was the opposite of the Lord of Wisdom Ahura Mazda. The Egyptians had Set, who was the god of chaos, who murdered Osiris. The Hebrews had various hostile spirits and fallen angels such as Azazel and Semjaza, which eventually evolved into the Christian devil and Satan. Sometimes these spirits were “gods” of neighboring hostile nations like Baal or Dagon, that were identified as evil. What’s interesting is that the Greeks didn’t have a specific diabolical deity that they identify as “evil.” The Greeks seem to have seen all the gods being capable of benevolence and evil, just like people. Whereas the other groups seem to have identified one or a group of gods as “good” and others as evil.

Perhaps this might be useful for a linguistic purposes of how various populations define “evil” in this sort of theological and mythological context. Supernatural entities that represent the occult, black magic, darkness, witchcraft, diseases, disasters, war, famine, drought, madness etc.

I recommend all of Jeffery Burton Russell’s books for research into the subject of the anthropological origin of evil.

Quote from Matt

Since we are not explicitly talking about this in terms of Epicurean philosophy,

We're going to have to figure out some way of clarifying that. It's like with "Gods" -- the definition is so different in Epicurus vs the non-Epicurean traditions that the words mean dramatically different things. In analogy to Epicurus saying that supernatural gods don't exist, but "real ones" do, we've got a situation where we (and probably Epicurus) refer to "evil" all the time, but do not mean anywhere near the same thing as does society at large. In Epicurean terms I would say there is no such thing as "absolute evil" (other than perhaps "pain" in a generic sense) just as there are no supernatural gods.

Unless we keep this clear the conversations are going to be hopelessly confused.

If anyone wishes to argue or imply that there is such a thing as "absolute evil" (in all circumstances; all times, all places, to all people) it would probably be good for them to state that explicitly so it can be fleshed out.

Quote from Don

There's some discussion of definitions and the Epicurean aversion to them in Philodemus's On Anger.

Yes Cicero states something similar. I suspect we're going to find that that is an overbroad statement, and that Epicurus used definitions just like anyone else, just with explicit caveats as to their limitations.

Quote from SimonC

It might be better to frame the discussion in terms of "good" vs "bad", or "healthy" vs "unhealthy".

And that reminds me of a significant section in DeWitt's book where he suggests that Epicurus viewed pleasure almost in terms of "food" or at least analogous to health vs disease.

Quote from Kalosyni

If civilization ended and cannibalism became the only way to survive, I can imagine that an Epicurean would sacrifice themselves or give themselves up for another's food because at that point "the party is over" meaning that a joyful life wouldn't be possible anymore, and it would also be chosen since "death is nothing to us".

I agree with that, but with the critical caveat that the issue would not turn so much on "civilization" but on those who are our family and "friends" (which would be an interesting issue to tackle as to who fits that). In other words there are people whose existence are critical to us, and people who we have essentially no relationship to, so it would be important to make that distinction. But in the sense of "the world of living human beings" for example if the entire earth were being destroyed by a meteor there wouldn't be much to argue about

Quote from Matt

however my personal revulsion is not based necessarily on the fact that my own society considers these acts as unlawful nor because of an ad populum argument that because the majority of the world rejects them as wrong or unlawful, I do as well…my own internal instinct tell me it’s “wrong” based on my natural experiences and empathetic reaction.

This point made by Matt here strikes me as essentially the exact same argument made by, and extended in great detail, in Jackson Barwis' "Dialogues Concerning Innate Principles" (his response to John Locke on the blank slate theory). I continue to recommend that to anyone interested in developing the argument. Here he makes Matt's point in other words:

Quote

The innate principles of the soul, continued he, cannot, any more than those of the body, be propositions. They must be in us antecedently to all our reasonings about them, or they could never be in us at all: for we cannot, by reasoning, create any thing, the principles of which did not exist antecedently. We can, indeed, describe our innate sentiments and perceptions to each other; we can reason, and we can make propositions about them; but our reasonings neither are, nor can create in us, moral principles. They exist prior to, and independently of, all reasoning, and all propositions about them.

When we are told that benevolence is pleasing; that malevolence is painful; we are not convinced of these truths by reasoning, nor by forming them into propositions: but by an appeal to the innate internal affections of our souls: and if on such an appeal, we could not feel within the sentiment of benevolence, and the peculiar pleasure attending it; and that of malevolence and its concomitant pain, not all the reasoning in the world could ever make us sensible of them, or enable us to understand their nature.

Possibly that's one of my favorite quotes of all time, because it not only hits against Aristotle's blank slate, but it also in my view hits on the heart Epicurus' argument against improper logical reasoning:

"we are not convinced of these truths by reasoning, nor by forming them into propositions:"

In my view this is an exact echo of what DeLacy says in his book on Philodemus On Signs about Epicurus' critique of Aristotle's position:

I am thinking that this issue can be summarized as:

"We are not convinced of truth by forming it into logical propositions."

And that applies with special force in issues of ethics and morality.

Quote from Cassius

I agree with that, but with the critical caveat that the issue would not turn so much on "civilization" but on those who are our family and "friends" (which would be an interesting issue to tackle as to who fits that). In other words there are people whose existence are critical to us, and people who we have essentially no relationship to, so it would be important to make that distinction. But in the sense of "the world of living human beings" for example if the entire earth were being destroyed by a meteor there wouldn't be much to argue about

This is such an interesting idea. For me, my family’s preservation would be my only concern in the event of some catastrophe. My only real need to survive would be so that I am present to be able to defend and provide for them.

A friend of mine said recently that when he was a Marine overseas, he would’ve been willing to die for his fellows without question, but now with his kids, he has so much more of a reason to live. So a biological imperative could theoretically change a person’s perspective. Willing to die for friends one day, unwilling to risk death if it means your absence is a net negative for your family the next day.

I too follow his principle in that I’m linked to my kids preservation, therefore if I die I won’t be present for them to continue my fatherly duties, but I would die for them if no options presented themselves. But I won’t be performing any uncalculated heroic acts of bravery for strangers, for my children’s sake.

Nature and biology have entirely rewired my brain. If you asked me about virtuous acts of bravery for random people years ago, I might’ve given my Marine friend’s earlier answer, but things have changed.

This whole topic has pushed my brain into an area of reflection about my individual perspectives of what my needs and wants are as a human being and what the agenda nature ultimately is.

Quote from Matt

I too follow his principle in that I’m linked to my kids preservation, therefore if I die I won’t be present for them to continue my fatherly duties, but I would die for them if no options presented themselves. But I won’t be performing any uncalculated heroic acts of bravery for strangers, for my children’s sake.

I can't remember which conversation we were in but I recall someone (Joshua or Don) addressing the hypothetical of whether a young person would die to save the life of their 99 year old grandfather. Every situation is different and even there I would not suggest a uniform rule, but even with people we know it is plain (at least to me) that we would not always give up our lives even for people who are close to us, depending on the circumstances.

When you extend that reasoning the idea of dying for "humanity at large" when you might have a chance to save or alleviate the suffering of your child or spouse or someone close to you is pretty breathtakingly abstract and (at least for me) a non-starter on the gut-level scale of the way I think I would personally act. And I suspect that Epicurus would well understand that argument.

My gosh there are reasonable arguments that he said something about living alone, and away from the crowd, and not paying attention to their lack of understand. I seriously doubt he would entertain the idea that he ought to be willing to give up his life for any number of strangers when he could preserve those of his family and friends.

It may be instructive to look at what's covered under dying for a φίλος (philos). The people covered under philia φιλιά, according to the unimpeachable source of Wikipedia are:

Philia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"young lovers (1156b2), lifelong friends (1156b12), cities with one another (1157a26), political or business contacts (1158a28), parents and children (1158b20), fellow-voyagers and fellow-soldiers (1159b28), members of the same religious society (1160a19), or of the same tribe (1161b14), a cobbler and the person who buys from him. (1163b35)"

This is from Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics but gives an idea of the range of who a philos may be. It goes beyond what we would necessarily call a "friend" in modern English.