Epicurean-Compatible Quotes

These are interesting quotes Pacatus ...I think it would be helpful for the newer readers and members if you could tie each of them to a specific section of an extant text (such as the Principal Doctrines, Letter to Menoceus, etc.)...if you don't mind? Thanks!

Quote from Pacatus

"It's the repetition of affirmations that leads to belief. And once that belief becomes a deep conviction, things begin to happen."

In my opinion (correct me if I am wrong Cassius )...this isn't compatible with Epicurean philosophy. There isn't anything in Epicureanism that says we should repeat things over and over (like a positive affirmation). Positive affirmations are not part of the practice. In fact, it is by the power of reason that we become accustomed that "death is nothing to us", because we reason through the "why's" and we reason through why something is true, so that we understand the truth of something.

PD16 - "Chance steals only a bit into the life of a wise person: for throughout the complete span of his life the greatest and most important matters have been, are, and will be directed by the power of reason."

Also, Letter to Herodotus ( Cassius)?

Quote from Pacatus

The associations are intended to be allusive -- not direct.

This also is not compatible with Epicurean philosophy.

In Diogenes Laertius Book 10, it says of Epicurus:

Quote

"The terms he used for things were the ordinary terms, and Aristophanes the grammarian credits him with a very characteristic style. He was so lucid a writer that in the work On Rhetoric he makes clearness the sole requisite. [14] And in his correspondence he replaces the usual greeting, "I wish you joy," by wishes for welfare and right living, "May you do well," and "Live well."

I actually don't think that quote is far off, although the additional context certainly helps. I think we have abundant evidence that repitition--that keeping things ante oculos, 'before the eyes', was a key part of learning, and that summaries and epitomes and outlines were part of that project. As was the practice of keeping Epicurus' image to hand, in pictures and on rings, busts, cups, and so on.

When I was 16 I reasoned my way to agnosticism and then atheism. Presumably if reason were the only faculty involved I could have reviewed my conclusions over a short period to test them and then dropped the matter forever. The last time I seriously questioned my atheism was over 10 years ago, when I found that I could not explain bioinformatics to myself,much less to others. This resulted in a deep and thorough period of research before I once again concluded that a designer was not necessary to explain the phenomenon.

Sometimes, though, it is helpful to be reminded that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, that what can be asserted without said evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and that when there are competing explanations for a given effect in nature, the argument that assumes the most or explains the least is, to that extent, the weakest on offer.

But it's true that I would not call this positive affirmation. Just a helpful reminder.

I've only had a brief chance to skim over the thread but I see the difference of opinion as pretty minor.

Over time we'll work on ways to make sure newer people go through a process of getting familiar with basic concepts early on so they are less likely to be confused. We can expect (and indeed hope) that as we grow in numbers we'll find even more diverse posting than we have already, and so we'll want to accomodate both the people focusing on the core ideas and those who just want to bounce their ideas off of other Epicurean-minded friends. I am convinced we can do both, and that's something that our forum leadership can work on over time.

For example several of our people are very interested in poetry while others are not interested in it at all, but that will go for virtually every topic that anyone might post. We can take the lead in making sure that the "front-page" focus goes to the right places for newer people while also making plenty of room for the detailed interests of the people who have been here longer.

Not to be trite about challenges being opportunities and all that, but this is a good problem to have and one that we have to address if we want the forum to have the widest possible impact.

Quote from Pacatus

"It's the repetition of affirmations that leads to belief. And once that belief becomes a deep conviction, things begin to happen."

-- Muhammad Ali

Pacatus Returning to this interesting quote (in part because of its author) I like the differentiation he made between "belief" and "deep conviction". There is a neurobiology of this. And, it is important in the issue of recalcitrance to behavioral change in the setting of behavioral illness.

Quote from Pacatus

Could you flesh that out a bit?

Pacatus Sure, happy to.

The one-liner is that behaviors are encoded in the brain and the brain did not evolve with great hardware for changing deeply-held beliefs, values, expectations, or attitudes.

The longer version reflects on both evolution and the juvenile stage of development. Evolution built animals with facilities for pre-wired responses (genetic behaviors), facilities for quick reaction responses, and facilities for both experientially-formulated and analytical responses. The current discussion centers on the latter two categories.

As children we learn to formulate response patterns partly as simple reactions (e.g. learning to balance when walking or avoid a toy being thrown at us). But, we also form experientially formulated abstractions for complex posturing to life situations. These are beliefs, values, expectations and attitudes. Because these are formulated during the childhood stage based on experience coupled with emotions they are not the result of rigorous analysis but are more the result of "what seems to work". They are encoded by feelings associated with experience. Once encoded they are "engrained" because of their associated emotions. As we come out of childhood we hold them as sacrosanct: "this is true in my life". They are "this is how you do life and stay safe". We do also form beliefs, values, and expectations that are more associated with analysis and less associated with emotions. They are less "engrained".

The engrained beliefs, values, expectations and attitudes are difficult to change, especially if the formative emotions were strong (fear, anger, etc). Coming out of childhood we hold them as relatively necessary approaches to life. They contribute to our personality. Professional experience with basic personalities shows that they do not change much during life. Thus, if a person wants to change these it may take a lot of work and guidance (e.g. counseling) over a long span to change them.

The analytical beliefs, values, expectations and attitudes can change more easily. They were derived by analysis and are more amenable to change by further analysis, particularly where emotions did not play a big role in their formation.

Evolution saw the juvenile stage of development as the time to learn how do do life, particularly with how to be safe in it. The adult stage is the time to implement what was learned during the juvenile stage. Thus, hardware for major changes during the adult stage is not very good (within parameters as above).

We can change, but where major emotions have created behaviors during the juvenile stage we may always retain tendencies to return to earlier behaviors, particularly when emotions are running high.

Is this enough?