Episode One Hundred Eight - The Benefits of A Proper Understanding of the Senses and of Natural Science

    I don't often listen to these (I was there, after all!), but I wanted to listen to this episode because of the importance of the subject matter.

    First (and I am aware that I say it myself...)---this is a good one! I can see this being good reference material on skepticism.

    Second, I think this is the kind of episode that demonstrates why this text is so valuable. Cicero's Epicurean material was deliberately 'off my radar' for a long time, but I really have to credit him with doing justice to our school. I am continually impressed with how rich and thorough this stuff is.

    Joshua I very much appreciate both you and Martin and I agree this is very good stuff that needs wider circulation. The projects we could undertake are literally neverending but materials like this give us a base with which to work!

    After listening a part of the episode, I'm wondering whether or not you've read my mind ;)

    The questions raised are of utmost importance- and, to be honest, they've almost brought me away from EP. But, as far as I can judge, the Epicurean is simply an empirical sceptic, right? So, an EP would say "I see light at the sky, and there's something projecting it". We shouldn't reach towards conclusions too hastily- but its safe to assume that after we launched satellites and have photos of the Sun, we can say that the light at the sky comes from the Sun.

    Whether or not the Sun consists of hydrogen or not, we cannot prove (yet). But in near future, that'll probably change.

    Today I had a discussion with a Christian girl (and one whom I've admitted in love a while ago, to be fair). When I asked her if tens or hundreds of thousands of scientists who work on the Evolution are wrong, she answered "yes", and then proceeded to ask why the Creationists should be less wrong than the Evolutionists. This was a major tipping point to me... first, that I consider myself very lucky that we didn't got into a relationship (I nowadays simply can't imagine being together with a person believing in a sky daddy and that the Earth was created 6000 years ago), and second- that religion is bullshit. We have physical evidence of animals living tens of thousands of years ago. The method of carbon detection is reliable, its proof. Can we safely assume that animals evolved exactly in the way that Darwin postulated? Probably not yet, as we don't have a time machine yet. Can we safely assume that animals evolved from bottom to top, from primitive to complex? We have physical evidence, which clearly indicates that way. So yes! Being a Sceptic would mean rejecting the fundamental stuff our science is built on.

    To sum it up: thanks for the episode! It was honestly eye-opening for me, and very important. As Epicurus advised, we should have faith in truth. But not truth which is per definition unprovable, but in truth which we can prove with our senses.

    The Earth is not flat. Covid is not a hoax (look into a hospital and the intensive care stations). Life on Earth is far older than 6,000 years. The Earth circle the Sun. This isn't an assumption. Its proven, countless scientists have worked on it. We can buy a place in a rocket, fly up and see that the world is, in fact, round. All this stuff is real. To doubt it, is madness and foolishness, not scepticism.

    And if you trust your senses, but reject metaphysical claims- so basically the ideal version of Scepticism... then you're vey close to being an Epicurean. Welcome!

    Quote from smoothiekiwi

    But, as far as I can judge, the Epicurean is simply an empirical sceptic, right

    In the way you mean it, probably yes, but in the way the standard dictionaries would apply that term, probably not. I am beginning to think there is never a safe way to use modern words to describe Epicurus other than just as "Epicurean" - or else use lots and lots of caveats every time.

    The particular danger here lies in going too far with observation - as it appears to me Frances Wright did - and concluding that no matter how much evidence you have you can never come to a "conclusion" that you can regard as confidently proven. We will be discussing that in detail in Wrights case later in the AFDIA book review and we might find occasion to discuss it in the Lucretius podcast again too.

    Wright's position on observationwhich I think deviates from Epicurus is set out in Chapter 15 of AFDIA.

    Quote


    Whether or not the Sun consists of hydrogen or not, we cannot prove (yet).

    Cecilia Payne proved already around 1925 that the sun and other stars analyzed by then consist predominantly of hydrogen (with helium as other major constituent and traces of heavier elements). Her discovery made by analyzing atomic spectra was so revolutionary that she had to apply the trick to "prove" why her result cannot be correct to get her thesis accepted. Those who initially disagreed with her finding "because it could not be" quickly found out she was right. What is still not yet known with the desirable accuracy is the concentration of heavier elements than helium.

    Quote from Cassius

    I am beginning to think there is never a safe way to use modern words to describe Epicurus other than just as "Epicurean" - or else use lots and lots of caveats every time

    Gosh, philosophy is sometimes so tiresome ;)

    But yes, you’re right. I didn’t mean it in the way that „every single perception shows the world exactly as it is“- it’s obvious that we see distant things smaller than they are in reality-, but that we should simply trust our senses to a certain degree. I walked out with my dog today, and saw trees- from that, I can safely assume that there was something which brought up the image of a tree in my brain. I didn’t consume any drugs, nor am I in a state of sleep deprivation- so it’s fair to assume that this tree really exists, especially because my dog saw it as well.

    It’s evident that we should be cautious when trusting our senses- sometimes they can lie. But the senses are the only thing we can rely on… and I notice that I basically copy what Epicurus said. This man spoke the truth, damn it!

    Quote from Martin

    Her discovery made by analyzing atomic spectra

    You’re right, I completely forgot about the atomic spectrum. Martin , I completely agree with everything you said. Thanks!

    Quote from Martin

    Cecilia Payne proved already around 1925.

    A lot of what we're talking about in this topic is "what does it mean to 'prove' something." We could say that we're coming to the conclusion that it means something like "establishes to the satisfaction of every reasonable scientist" but obviously that definition has lots of problems too.'

    I see this, which also seems rather circular and to avoid a clear statement of a standard of proof:

    Quote

    prove

    [ proov ]

    See synonyms for: prove / proved / proven / proves on Thesaurus.com

    verb (used with object), proved, proved or prov·en, prov·ing. to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one's claim. Law. to establish the authenticity or validity of (a will); probate. to give demonstration of by action. to subject to a test, experiment, comparison, analysis, or the like, to determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics, etc.: to prove ore.

    to show (oneself) to have the character or ability expected of one, especially through one's actions. Mathematics. to verify the correctness or validity of by mathematical demonstration or arithmetical proof. Also proof. Printing. to take a trial impression of (type, a cut, etc.). to cause (dough) to rise to the necessary lightness. Archaic. to experience.

    Very possibly it would be good to create a special recording session, like we did on Martin's "logic" presentation, on PD23 and PD24 - possibly focusing on PD24 and references to the evaluation of multiple possibilities, and when to choose between them, rather than strictly on the issue of the reliability of sensations.

    PD23. If you fight against all sensations, you will have no standard by which to judge even those of them which you say are false.

    PD24. If you reject any single sensation, and fail to distinguish between the conclusion of opinion, as to the appearance awaiting confirmation, and that which is actually given by the sensation or feeling, or each intuitive apprehension of the mind, you will confound all other sensations, as well, with the same groundless opinion, so that you will reject every standard of judgment. And if among the mental images created by your opinion you affirm both that which awaits confirmation, and that which does not, you will not escape error, since you will have preserved the whole cause of doubt in every judgment between what is right and what is wrong.

    Quote from Don

    I would rephrase that as "It’s evident that we should be cautious when interpreting our senses - we can sometimes lie to ourselves (often unknowingly).

    I love it when I notice that the other person is right, but without being humiliated myself ;)

    But seriously, thanks. It's a good feeling to learn from others to express thoughts more precise, but without the usual "you're not good enough" feeling.

    In addition to the question of lying, what you're talking about now is probably under the category of what "opinion" is - and how truth and error is a matter that we talk about under the topic of "opinion" rather than in terms of truth or error being what the senses provide to us.

    There's a lot to unpack in that word "opinion" -- and in associated words like "knowledge" and "true" and "false."

    Y'all brought up the "the sage will be dogmatic" which I found interesting when doing my translation:

    Epicurean Sage - Declare their beliefs and not remain in doubt
    Hicks: He will be a dogmatist but not a mere sceptic; Yonge: he will pronounce dogmas, and will express no doubts; Mensch: He will assert his opinions and will…
    sites.google.com

    I find it very interesting that that "δογματιεῖν (dogmatiein)" is juxtaposed with "ἀπορήσειν (aprēsein)" which seems to dovetail exactly with what you all are discussing.

    Literally, the "dogmatizer" will make a decision; the "aporēsizer" (to coin a term) will remain puzzled and not come to any decision. I would like to see ἀπορήσειν was applied to Skeptic philosophy.

    "In Pyrrhonism aporia is intentionally induced as a means of producing ataraxia."


    So they may allege (i don't know) but from what I am reading in the word what it induces is fear, uncertainty, doubt, and ultimately nihilism, and I gather that much the same was behind Epicurus' criticism of Socrates.

    Especially since in the end the Platonists don't replace the doubt with answers, but with apocryphal methods of syllogistic logic to which they lay claim to be the experts and which is beyond the understanding of all except their initiates.

    Initiating questioning is usually good, but I do not sense that the Platonists and Pyrrhonistz et al were acting in good faith.

    I'm becoming more convinced of the significance of the juxtaposition of δογματιεῖν (dogmatiein) and ἀπορήσειν (aporēsein) after looking at those references. If Diogenes Laertius was copying from some Epicurean text for those characteristics, it seems there was a definite contrast being made between those who δογματιεῖν and those who ἀπορήσειν.

    Quote from Cassius

    Especially since in the end the Platonists don't replace the doubt with answers, but with apocryphal methods of syllogistic logic to which they lay claim to be the experts and which is beyond the understanding of all except their initiates.


    Initiating questioning is usually good, but I do not sense that the Platonists and Pyrrhonistz et al were acting in good faith

    I find this interesting. Plato's initial philosophy goes directly back to Socrates. I have major problems with Sōkratēs (let's give him his true name). The gadfly was a terrible husband, neglectful (at best!) father, and general pain in the ... neck. His questioning has been presented as a way of "getting at the truth" but was it really that? He seems to argue for argument's sake, twisting people in knots... And leaving them there. He took no position, and turned those around who did! It certainly sounds like he had some charisma. He was clever. But it seems like the whole "all Western philosophy is a footnote to Plato/Socrates" is very sad and the ultimate missed opportunity :(

    As for Pyrrho, here's his bio from Diogenes Laertius:

    Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, BOOK IX, Chapter 11. PYRRHO (c. 360-270 b.c.)

    In fact, check out verse 70 (emphasis added):

    Quote

    Besides these, Pyrrho's pupils included Hecataeus of Abdera, Timon of Phlius, author of the Silli, of whom more anon, and also Nausiphanes of Teos, said by some to have been a teacher of Epicurus. All these were called Pyrrhoneans after the name of their master, but Aporetics, Sceptics, Ephectics, and even Zetetics, from their principles, if we may call them such-- [70] Zetetics or seekers because they were ever seeking truth, Sceptics or inquirers because they were always looking for a solution and never finding one, Ephectics or doubters because of the state of mind which followed their inquiry, I mean, suspense of judgement, and finally Aporetics or those in perplexity, for not only they but even the dogmatic philosophers themselves in their turn were often perplexed.

    Quote from Don

    I have major problems with Sōkratēs (let's give him his true name). The gadfly was a terrible husband, neglectful (at best!) father, and general pain in the ... neck. His questioning has been presented as a way of "getting at the truth" but was it really that? He seems to argue for argument's sake, twisting people in knots... And leaving them there. He took no position, and turned those around who did!

    What, really? Do you have a source on that? I’m really interested in the subject, because- as you’ve mentioned- Western philosophy places these two men in the middle.

Unread Threads

    1. Title
    2. Replies
    3. Last Reply

    2. Evidence of Survivors of Pompeii and Herculaneum 1

      • kochiekoch
      • November 20, 2024 at 8:17 PM
    3. Replies
      1
      Views
      100
      1

    4. Don

      November 20, 2024 at 8:17 PM

    2. “Better to lose the money because of me than to lose me because of the money.” 3

      • TauPhi
      • November 19, 2024 at 9:30 PM
    3. Replies
      3
      Views
      228
      3

    4. Don

      November 19, 2024 at 9:30 PM

    2. An Anti-Epicurean Article - "The Meaning of Life Is Not Happiness" (For Future Reference) 12

      • Cassius
      • November 19, 2024 at 12:17 PM
    3. Replies
      12
      Views
      902
      12

    4. Pacatus

      November 19, 2024 at 12:17 PM

    2. Was De Rerum Natura intended as satire? A lecture by THM Gellar-Goad. 14

      • Julia
      • November 11, 2024 at 4:09 PM
    3. Replies
      14
      Views
      1.1k
      14

    4. Julia

      November 11, 2024 at 4:09 PM

    2. New Slideshow: Nothing Comes From Nothing

      • Cassius
      • November 10, 2024 at 3:51 PM
    3. Replies
      0
      Views
      538