What holds me back from embracing EP

Excellent question and opportunity for discussion. Here's a quick response from me for now. We know "atoms and void" are not exactly the fundamental building blocks of the universe now. Physics tells us that the universe is made of quantum fields. But, at the level we at which humans need to "care about," we can deal with atoms (and their direct constituents: protons, electrons; quarks, and so on) and the void that surrounds them.

What this means to me is that "atoms and void" is shorthand for a fully material universe. There is no "guiding hand", nothing that can't be measured (eventually). Our "mind" is based on a physical reality. We dissolve into physical parts when we die, nothing immaterial left over. Nothing hiding behind the material universe of which to fear.

EricR personally I find PN03 very comforting. Over my lifetime I've spent years trying unsuccessfully to come to terms with the supernatural aspects of various religions and philosophies. It was only upon discovering EP that I felt like I'd "come home".

I certainly don't know that all is atoms and void, but the best scientific observation over centuries has failed to verify a supernatural phenomenon. If one was to be verified, then I would do my best to understand how that impacts my world view. Actually, "atoms and void" is now understood as matter/energy and void ( Martin is much more qualified to discuss this than I am!) but, as I see it it still precludes the supernatural.

As I have read some of the ancient arguments for and against atomism over the last few years, I've become increasingly unconvinced by the arguments against. For me, such arguments, at least in the west, are often more concerned with political power than the search for truth. Whether East or West, however, I find that EP is the philosophy that has most accurately anticipated the development and conclusions of modern science and thus can provide a relevant guide to living well.

Even with no supernatural, there's still no end to the mystery of life and the universe! For me, understanding the universe as atoms and void only removes the myth making. I can still enjoy the myths as myths, and often learn from them. But I find an enormous sense of wonder and joy in living in a material universe in which I am an emergent property.

Quote from EricR

It is this question that holds me back from buying into EP fully since I see other ideas such as the eastern notion that "all is Mind (consciousness or spirit)" as among those other ways of seeing the structure of reality.

I will quietly and gently ask you to consider:

Will understanding the hidden structure of reality help you live a happy life? Will it help you make good decisions? Will it give you motivation to pursue what is natural and necessary for happiness?

About my own experience -- I found that "eastern notions" of reality caused me to feel like giving up on life (no need to do, just be) and so they didn't work as a path toward happiness, for me.

And yet maybe for you, there is something that does work for you in "eastern notions of reality"...and if for you it leads to a happy and content life, then you should continue on with it

Quote from EricR

So, do Epicureans know there are only atoms and void, or do they believe this.

I think of reality as a "fully material universe" -- just as Don put it. So no heaven, no rebirth, just this very life, with all its simplicity, feeling the body, feeling the breath, and everything continually unfolding in awareness.

Maybe an Epicurean would say "Life is body and mind joyfully dancing toward pleasure, and calmly walking away from pain."

Quote from EricR

Here is what I asked: is it accepted within the community that it's an indisputable fact that "there is nothing other than atoms and void", or is it thought to be a belief that may or may not be true or provable?

I would say it is accepted as fact that it is true that we live in a purely material universe. "Atoms and void" is the shorthand for this foundational tenet of the philosophy. From my perspective, it's no more a "belief" than to say that someone hasa "belief" in biological evolution or a "belief" in gravity.

Quote from EricR

Is it accepted within the community that it's an indisputable fact that "there is nothing other than atoms and void", or is it thought to be a belief that may or may not be true or provable?

This is as much an epistemological question as physical.

Based on the thread so far(and a short private exchange with Eric) I am pretty sure that a large part of what Eric is asking is the "epistemology" issue - the "certainty" issue.

Was Epicurus teaching a set of facts, or methodology, or combination of the two, by which we should be darn-near "certain" that nothing exists except the "material" realm?

Sometimes we get sidetracked on the question of "the physics has changed" and we start talking about fields and energy and the qualities of "nothingness" and the like, but I think we're now pretty on track that the essential question here is something else:

I don't know if this question will finally set us off on a thorough discussion of Philodemus' "On Signs / On Methods of Inference" (because everyone knows that whenever I have a question I consult Philodemus!) but I am pretty sure that the issues contained there and in PD22 - PD25 are what we need to discuss - with the emphasis being on Philodemus, and the help that is provided by the DeLacy commentary in his translation.

Ultimately one version of the question is: "Do we ever know that we have enough evidence to be "certain" of something? And, if so, "How do we know that we have reached that point?"

This is pretty much the question where Frances Wright decided to "punt" and take the position that we should take issues like this and classify them as "unanswerable" and/or "not my concern." I will go on record immediately and say that I think she was very wrong to do that. In fact that's my best guess as to why she decided not to spend much effort on Epicurus for the rest of her life, and I think that was a tragic mistake.

So maybe another question that we will answer when we answer Eric is "How do we avoid "the Frances Wright problem?" And that means that part of this debate ought to include a look at Wright's statements in Chapter 15 where she concludes: "Above all, she advances no dogmas, — is slow to assert what is, — and calls nothing impossible." (That "she" in the quote is a reference to "Real Philosophy" personified as "she."

Can you imagine hearing Epicurus say "I can't say that it's impossible that the universe was created by a supernatural god?" I can't, and in regard to the AFDIA book review these are the issues where we need to point out that Wright was deviating from Epicurus.

Wright will help us make the issue clear, but we won't find the answer there. I think we'll find it in Philodemus, Lucretius, and Epicurus' letter to Herodotus, with a little help from Diogenes Laertius, Diogenes of Oinoanda, and even Sextus Empiricus.

If we could just inspire someone to become the "Epistemologist" of our little garden, and help systematize this issue in the way that Nate has done the PDs or Don has done Menoeceus or Joshua has attacked reading Torquatus, we would REALLY accomplish something!

In the last few months I’ve been flirting with some ideas that come out of Taoist philosophy that seem to work well with my concept of the material universe within EP and also seem to enhance my overall view of reality. Lately I feel that I sense nature’s “behavior”…not in a supernatural, providential or pantheistic way, but more in the way nature and the cosmos seem to operate upon fixed processes that are very reliable in their outcomes and that nature has a will of it’s own independent from human will. Almost like a “behavior,” Nature manifests and unmanifests, creates stars and galaxies and simultaneously destroys them, causes living beings to act according to instinct to sustain life and create more life, while simultaneously killing and destroying other life. These processes exist independently of our speculation and even our existence. In Taoism, the ineffable and apophatic aspects of nature are best understood by living in accord with them or flowing with them, as opposed to necessarily knowing them. So there is always room for some introspective awe about unknowns in nature, yet since will live in the universe and are a part of it the best way to know nature is to live in accord with it, and we can take comfort in knowing that life operates upon certain principles that we can come to rely on. Atoms and void, and their behavior, rely upon each other to make the universe the way it is. Being and non-being “create” each other…just like up creates down, hard creates soft etc. they are concepts that we define, but they exist as aggregates in nature.

I started thinking about nature in this way a little while ago when I realized that though I have plans and desires for my life, nature has its own plans that I’m subject to. Nature operates upon certain reliable principles and the real magic is observing them and understanding that everything operates according to its will.

Quote from Matt

nature has its own plans that I’m subject to. Nature operates upon certain reliable principles and the real magic is observing them and understanding that everything operates according to its will.

I can deeply appreciate where you're coming from. I too have/had some affinity for that line of thought.

My only caution would be to echo Lucretius (e.g., say Bacchus for wine, etc) and to see that language as purely poetic and not literal.

This is Munro's version of the text in Book Two Don is referencing:

[644] All which, well and beautifully as it is set forth and told, is yet widely removed from true reason. For the nature of gods must ever in itself of necessity enjoy immortality together with supreme of repose, far removed and withdrawn from our concerns; since exempt from every pain, exempt from all dangers, strong in its own resources, not wanting aught of us, it is neither gained by favors nor moved by anger. And here if any one thinks proper to call the sea Neptune and corn Ceres and chooses rather to misuse the name of Bacchus than to utter the term that belongs to that liquor, let us allow him to declare that the earth is mother of the gods, if he only forbear in earnest to stain his mind with foul religion. The earth however is at all times without feeling, and because it receives into it the first– beginnings of many things, it brings them forth in many ways into the light of the sun.

And I’m using this language poetically. The reason I see nature this way is because, though I operate seeking a pleasurable life, which is the goal of EP, I can see that the universe doesn’t explicitly care that “Matt” the individual is saturated in pleasure (though I may deeply care), nature has created avenues for me to experience pleasure as the goal. If I go swimming in the ocean seeking pleasure, and I am devoured by a rogue great white shark operating on the same hunger satisfying hedonic principle that drives me to head to my local steakhouse for a sumptuous dinner, nature didn’t play favorites. We are equals, the shark and I. This time the shark’s instinctual pleasure seeking won out. The difference is for me to know how nature works and not attempt to find pleasure in shark infested waters where I’m the the sumptuous meal.

Well I took the time to look at Sedley's article "On Signs" but it is of only limited use. He doesn't attempt to start from scratch and explain the basic issues in laymen's terms. We're generally talk about issues of how and why and when it is permissible to draw conclusions about that which cannot be observed from that which can be observed. DeLacey's book has a long set of commentaries (at the end of the book) that are much more clear about the basic issues. But Sedley is probably more up-to-date, and here are a couple of clips from Sedley that may be a little helpful:

I think we can find a link where people can read the full article if they are interested. Email me if so. But I think that the DeLacey commentary is really the place to start, and probably a lot less discouraging that starting with Sedley's article.

Again, the real challenge is bringing all this down to earth and explaining it in layman's terms, and that work has not yet been done and is calling out to us to do it!

Quote from Matt

We are equals, the shark and I.

In an absolute/objective perspective, no question. Totally agree.

From my relative/subjective perspective, I am much more important than the shark.

I am in awe of the universe and its complexity and my miniscule existence in it, and I can take pleasure in that contemplation.

In my choices and rejections, I operate as if I have importance... Because I do... to me.

In *some* ways, it echoes the Buddhist Two Truths as to absolute and relative existence.

Quote from EricR

It reminds me how much discomfort many of us experience with uncertainty.

And I think that's an important part of why Epicurus thought that it is important to track these issues down to a conclusion, and not leave them hanging, as did Frances Wright. At risk of offense when I make that observation I would not be surprised if some would say that if you were to "take a poll" on whether these issues are super-important (Epicurus) or can be put to the side (Wright), the answers to this question might be found to correlate to some degree by male / female. At any rate, regardless of sex, some people are more concerned about them than others, and it's interesting to think about why that divide exists. It might also be influenced by childhood indoctrination into religion. Why did Epicurus find it necessary to pursue his whole life the answer to the "Chaos" problem, while Frances Wright put it entirely aside.

This really deserves a long and detailed treatment, at least as much time as we would devote to a "personal outline." But I haven't done one and can only offer some random thoughts:

1 - I think we can trace the Epicurean viewpoint on this best by looking at Lucretius' argument for atoms and void and the other basic questions in Book One of his poem. He's using deductive reasoning to turn observations of things which can be observed into opinions about things which cannot be observed. And in regard to these "close-at-hand" issues, he does not resort to multiple explanations - he reaches conclusions which are to all intents and purposes "certain," especially when you look at them from a high-level view. Some of the terminology and observations might need revision today, but I think essentially the same reasoning applies today to exclude to a reasonable certainty the existence of supernatural universe-creating forces.

2 - Then there's the logical component of deciding what "reasonable certainty" really means. Do we have to conclude that because we are not omniscient we therefore can never be certain of anything? To me that's one way of stating the ultimate question, and I can't answer that in any way but to say that we DO have the means to determine with reasonable certainty those things that are most important to us, like the existence of the supernatural and absence of life after death. The evidence in support of those positions I find to be compelling, and the arguments against it I find to be totally speculative. And how do we stack up and weigh "speculation without evidence and against tons of evidence" in the balance? We don't give much if any significance in our day-to-day decisions, and it seems to me we should give it less significance the more important the question.

3 - If someone wants to argue that we need "faith" or "trust" I would say Yes, I agree to an extent, but trust in what? There is lots of evidence that Nature has given us our senses, and basic reasoning to use them, but no real evidence of supernatural revelations exist other than hearsay from people who in my humble opinion have shown them selves to be supremely untrustworthy and even deceptive. So if I have to "trust" someone or something I find it much easier to "Trust Nature" and play the cards we are dealt as she gave them to us.

I could go on and on and on but will stop there for now. I do think that we all have to tackle these issues and be able to articulate our positions on them, or we've entirely missed an whole 1/3 of Epicurean philosophy. I think these can be done in a LOT simpler way than to play the elaborate word games of the Stoics and others, and I think it's important that we work to reconstruct and explain Epicurus' arguments on these issues by (1) starting where he started and reasoning based on his patterns, and (2) exploring the surviving texts. Based on that two--pronged approach I think we can reconstruct his viewpoint pretty accurately.

Even as it is today, I personally find it pretty compelling.

"The sage will declare a definite position and not remain in doubt or be puzzled."

Coincidentally, I just read this very short story by Lucian which deals with this issue:

Swans and Amber | Electrum [The Lucian of Samosata Project]

Thank you Godfrey!

Some years ago I went through Lucians works and pulled out the ones that dealt with Epicurus specifically, like Alexander the Oracle Monger, which are very good.

But I never spent much time with the rest, and this one is an example that there is a lot of good material there that we need to harvest.

For example: How many of us have read Lucian's "The Porch vs. Pleasure"?

Now that we are much further along than I was when I produced my Lucian collection in epub, we are much better equipped to tackle the collection again and add them to our discussions.

Link to my epub: Epub Version of Lucian's Dialogues That Focus on Epicurus