Posts by Cassius

Quote from DaveT

I'm not sure how to take this comment to my statement above. Please explain if you are speaking to me as "one of those"?

No no not at all directed at you - it's just a general reference to a topic that's regularly on my mind - how to balance competing priorities. This topic has covered a lot of ground and that comment arose from my constantly thinking about how to figure out where the "guard rails" should be. I go to the Epicurean Reddit fairly regularly myself, and in general I'd encourage people here to drop in there at least occasionally. We need to be aware of and be able to debate all sides of these issues, the tricker issue is how much time to spend doing it.

Thanks for the link on Habermas. Was he using that phrase in regard to determinism?

Quote from Todd

To deny free will is a performative contradiction.

Excellent pithy phrasing.

I suspect the Epicurus would say the same formula applies here also:

To deny the possibility of knowledge is a performative contradiction.

The self-refutation argument seems to have been a major tool in Epicurus' toolchest..

Also: similarly in both contexts, there is a reasonable position based on circumstances and not "all or nothing" on either side.

Not everything is in our control, but at the same time not everything is beyond our control.

Not everything is knowable, but at the same time some things are knowable.

I note that these comments would really have been more appropriate under the FAQ entry for Determinism / Free Will, but our existing entry was little more than a stub.

I've updated that with a summary of the discussions we've had elsewhere on the forum. i realize that Peter K will disagree with most all of this, but I think this new entry fairly summarizes Epicurus' own position. We can of course discuss that further as well, but consistent with the goals of the forum I think this moves us closer to being able to articulate a useful and correct Epicurean viewpoint for those who really want to participate in an "Epicurean" community.

I do thank Peter for bringing up his objections as this is a FAQ entry that I should have tended to long ago.

Why Does Epicurus Reject Determinism And Fatalism? - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

Without rehashing what is in the FAQ material, one of the most clear statements of how the physics plays into these issue occurs in Lucretius Book 3. Of course someone can deny the conclusion, and say that Epicurus / Lucretius were wrong, and that we should accept total determinism / fatalism as inherent in the universe being material.

But I don't see any room for doubt. The Epicureans did in fact consider those objections, and concluded that those objections are not controlling.

3-307

So is it with the race of men. However much training gives some of them an equal culture, yet it leaves those first traces of the nature of the mind of each. Nor must we think that such maladies can be plucked out by the roots, but that one man will more swiftly fall into bitter anger, another be a little sooner assailed by fear, while a third will take some things more gently than is right. And in many other things it must needs be that the diverse natures of men differ, and the habits that follow thereon; but I cannot now set forth the secret causes of these, nor discover names for all the shapes of the first atoms, whence arises this variety in things. One thing herein I see that I can affirm, that so small are the traces of these natures left, which reason could not dispel for us, that nothing hinders us from living a life worthy of the gods.

In my view everything posted in the thread so far has been valuable for setting the stage of the debate. It is good for people to know where Tim O'Keefe stands and how he disagrees with Sedley on emergence.

Also, Don has focused on some very important issues such as the levels of jargon that are involved in discussing determinism and fatalism and compatibilism and the like. In my view 97% of the normal people in the world are never going to drill down into this debate and care about how to chase these rabbits, and it's normal people to whom Epicurean philosophy has always most appealed. The professional rabbit-chasers have always preferred some version of Pythagorus, Plato, or Stoicism.

What they need answers to are questions like:

(1) Do we have any control over the future course of our lives?

(2) Are we as humans no different from "chemical scum"?

The answers to those questions in my view have emphatic answers under the clear thrust of Epicurus' overall philosophy. Yes we have some control over the future course of our lives, and yes we are very different from chemical scum. I recall zero references in any Epicurean text which contain the psychological advice under which we should think of ourselves as "chemical scum." That's very different from saying that all things are composed of matter and void. Rhetorically equating humanity to chemical scum is every bit as damaging to human happiness on the "down" side as thinking that we are divine beings set over and apart from the rest of the universe is on the "up" side.

Likewise on determinism and Fate, Epicurus made very clear that some things are under our control , some are not, and some happen by accident. And there is no supernatural force spinning a web of Fate that would allow for forces working intelligently to thwart some small degree of free-play that we might have under some other point of view.

It sounds like Peter is familiar with Tim O'Keefe and other arguments that he probably thinks would lead someone to answer my two questions differently under an Epicurean framework, so it will be good to discuss those.

But this is one of those areas where we really need to focus on the practical results and not our ability to chase rabbits. I'm glad to know that quote from Hawking as he certainly has a sterling reputation in "science." But in my view Hawking has no Epicurean credentials and he's clearly treading into philosophy and ethics by using inflammatory references to the human race as chemical scum. Hawking knew how he would be interpreted when he said that, and he apparently saw that as consistent with his own view of human life, whatever that was. What we are doing in studying and promoting Epicurus entails a very different attitude toward human life.

Quote from Peter Konstans

Consciousness requires a dynamically-evolving sense of self-awareness which requires a human brain and its biological substrate.

i agree with Peter K's post and "liked it." I singled out this sentense only because I don't think he meant to imply that animals are not conscious, or only a "human" brain can be conscious. If you did mean that Peter please correct me, but I took your sentence in the context that the word "human" had been omitted and that your intended focus was on the "biological substrate." I suppose even the "biological substrate" might not be necessarily precise enough, but I think most of us consider that to be a reasonable way of describing what we think is required for consciousness. I would focus on Peter's "dynamically-evolving sense of self-awareness" as the right direction for a test of consciousness.

Quote from Martin

In both cases, pattern recognition built on past input is applied to new input to generate a response.

At least at present that's the way I am seeing a relationship that is productive to discuss.

No doubt there are many differences, but i would not underestimate the significance of even this short part of Martin's statement.

When the major other alternatives are things like (1) "God (or my daemon) tells me what the truth is" or (2) "I know the truth because I remember it from my past life when I was living among the ideal forms," then the option (3) "my mind starts at birth assembling patterns that I then use to deal successfully with new experiences" is a huge improvement.

Quote from DaveT

I guess I'm not an Epicurean but rather a student of Epicurean thought and an adopter of many of his methodologies for discovering knowledge.

That "student" term would describe all of us, and is one of the two major goals of the forum.

The other major goal of the forum is to build a community of "advocates" for Epicurean philosophy as a coherent body of thought for normal people. That's not directed toward "discovering knowledge" as much as it is toward "living happily."

For that reason, we curate the forum along the major lines stressed by advocates such as Lucretius and Diogenes of Oinoanda and Philodemus. For those who want no advocacy and guard rails of any kind, there's always Reddit. Both (and other variations as well) have their legitimate places.

I like talking about these things as it builds clarity. I've never been convinced that "EpicureanFriends" was the best title for the forum, but it got picked because it does describe things everyone ought to expect. Whenever someone new comes here, the name tells them to expect to encounter people who are clearly Epicurean, and who clearly think of each other as friends both of each other and of the ancient Epicurean school.

So you reject basically the entire thrust of "emergence," and you see that as Tim OKeefe's position too?

I put "emergence" in quotes because I am not sure what aspect you are focusing on.

Does it come down in your view to the conclusion that we are all simply "chemical scum?"

Thanks for the comment Peter.

Quote from Peter Konstans

I personally favor the reductionist version of Epicureanism.

To what opinions does that lead you which conflict with the Sedley opinions in "Epicurean Anti_reductionism"?

Article - David Sedley - 1988 - "Epicurean Anti-Reductionism"

ADMIN NOTE: Speaking of things breaking apart due to atomic collisions, I think Kalosyni is looking at dividing this thread up into more manageable topics such as separating the prolepsis of gods topic from prolepsis analogies to llm (while leaving marker posts) so don't be surprised if that happens.

Quote from Don

The bigger issue for me is talking about "gods" "living" in the "intermundia".

I don't recall that we've discussed this but it would probably be interesting to pin down exactly what it was about being "between the worlds" that the Epicureans would have associated with the idea that this was a particularly hospitable place.

I suspect we today would look for the reasoning revolving around gravity or the spinning of galaxies or the atoms being more "spread out" with more space between them or something like that, because we would think about all the matter in a particular area being attracted toward a localized center. But I am not sure why that would translate in Epicurus' mind as an environment easier to sustain oneself in. Fewer atomic collisions?

I don't expect we would take the same approach at all today but if we understood what he was thinking about we'd probably have a better understanding of whether the gods are "by nature" imperishable or whether they "act to maintain" their imperishability, and that in turn might make the entire picture more relatable.

Quote from Don

I think I'm an atheist or at least agnostic anymore.

This is probably what you meant as written but just to be clear - this is not missing a "don't" is it? (The "anymore" rather than "nowadays" at the end is the main reason i ask that.)

And thanks to Bryan for immediately weighing in with some texts - not many or any others here could do that so well! Who needs AI when you have that kind of memory?

Quote from Bryan

The idealist position would have to argue there is no original source (no hypokeimenon). But according to Epicurus, if there is no original source, the object is not real -- and the proposition that it is real, is necessarily false (such as the proposition "minotaurs exist").

This aspect of the "idealist" position as cited by Bryan reminds me to clarify: I think Epicurus' position on divinity served important goal-identifying and psychological purposes for Epicurus (which is a positive use of the term ideal), just as reverencing the sage is of great benefit to him who does the reverencing). IN ADDITION I think Epicurus thought such beings of such a class really exist in the universe, both because we receive "images" of them and because it makes sense that such beings do exist in an infinite and eternal universe. I think these "real" and "ideal" aspects go hand and hand and there's no conflict between them. To the extent that those that hold the "idealist" position also hold that these gods do *not* exist in reality, but solely as mental constructs, I don't agree with that aspect of the "idealist" view. Sorry to interrupt the flow of the discussion but this is for any lurkers who might be confused by my earlier comment.

Quote from Cassius

If this keeps up we're going to have to appoint Tau Phi as Moderator-Pro-Tem of the SUAVITY forum!

To supplement my brilliant humor, I am hoping that some of our "idealists" like Don will weigh in on the objection Tau Phi is raising to what Titus has suggested. I personally don't consider that the two camps on this topic are really in conflict, as I think Epicurus thought "both" were correct. But very possibly someone coming more from the psychological perspective (ie Don or others) might have something more to say on how to separate the good uses of "aiming for the best" from the "bad uses" of idealism.

Quote from TauPhi

I do differ in some areas but I also love Epicurean philosophy. It has benefited my life enormously and it still does. Even if I don't accept the philosophy in its entirety, I agree with most of it. It may look sometimes that I'm picking a fight but I really, really don't. I don't argue because I want to become the Internet troll of the month. I hope exchanging ideas is beneficial to all parties involved. And the truth is, I agree a lot with you Cassius as well. It's just we usually don't discuss things we agree upon.

If this keeps up we're going to have to appoint Tau Phi as Moderator-Pro-Tem of the SUAVITY forum!

I meant to say this previously but I believe I got cut short of time and deleted it.

In general I often find it surprising how much I agree with Tau Phi's perspective on Epicurean philosophy despite the fact that he is very clear that he differs with Epicurus on certain key issues (such as issues of skepticism and as we see in this thread, physics).

I think I understand where he is coming from on those and I respect his opinion as a matter of disagreement.

On the issue of "gods" the subject is loaded like a nuclear bomb. I understand that here it is particularly hard to put away preconceived notions of what the term "god" must necessarily mean. I think those terminology issues lead to 90% of the disagreement that people in general have about Epicurus' views of gods.

But on Tau Phi's comments on Titus' post as to "ultimates" I think we may eventually be able to close the gap.

To me it's pretty clear that seeing things "on a spectrum," and seeing that there are clear differences between the higher end of the spectrum and the lower end, does not constitute "idealism." As I am reading Tau Phi's view he is arguing outside of BOTH the "idealist" and "realist" perspectives, even though most readers of Epicurus find themselves gravitating towards one or the other.

So I am thinking that talking through this further will be helpful and does not need to end with just a statement that the views are irreconcilable.

On each of these points I agree with Titus and completely see it differently from Tau Phi. We are not talking idealism, we are talking about recognizing scales of measure just as we would see longer living as better than shorter living. There's no specific definition of how long is ultimate outside of a context, but we can still recognize some attributes as better than others.

We've discussed many of these issues many times in many plaves, but Just for the sake of having fun with the last post here is an example of how I would push back at the contention that Epicurean physics is obsolete. Ironically I would also expect that an AI engine would probably do a better job of laying out both sides of these arguments and how they might be reconciled than some of us are able to do.

These are several of the most fundamental issues on which I contend Epicurus can and should be defended:

1. It cannot be true that matter and space are "infinitely" divisible. If that were true then movement would truly be impossible, because you would always have to traverse infinite distances of space to move at all. Further, dividing bodies infinitely would amount to their ceasing to have any real existence. If all things were infinitely divisible then all things would have long since ceased to exist, because they could not have been replaced (as our experience tells us that things do not come from nothing). Epicurus makes no specific claim about any step along the way other than that there is an ending point to divisibility. "Atom" means nothing other than that end-point - uncuttable. Whether we today call that point some kind of subatomic particles makes no difference - the only issue is that division cannot be continued without end. At some point division must stop and you must arrive at a particle that has size, shape, and weight (motion).
2. The empty space in the universe and the part of the universe that is material and not empty are both infinite in extent. If bodies were infinite in number but space was limited, everything would be filled up with bodies. If space were infinite but bodies were not infinite in number, bodies would never come together to form combinations, just as the wreckage of a ship drifts further and further apart and does not reassemble itself into a ship.
3. The universe as a whole had no beginning because nothing can come from nothing. The universe as a whole will never have an end because no thing can go to nothing. These are logical positions that make perfect sense and require nothing specific about how the matter and space are arranged in any locality within the universe as a whole.
4. Epicurus' essential claim about images is that we do not perceive the world around us through some kind of magical or divine communication, but because particles flow constantly in all directions. Our senses react to contact with those particles. Call those particles photons or waves of electromagnetic emissions or whatever, the information we receive comes through particles interacting with each other between us and the object of our attention.
5. Epicurus' only specific claims about gods are that we should think of them as blessed and imperishable. This is an opinion, and like all opinions they originate from our minds processing our contacts with the outside world. Our five senses and two feelings receive stimulations from outside us (including non-visual images, and our anticipations pick out patterns from among them from which our minds generate opinions. Among the concepts we form from those patterns are "blessedness" and "imperishableness." These conceptions are formed from real patterns, but we are often mistaken when apply those conceptions to specific phenomena. Many of these errors arise because we presume that a blessed and imperishable being would be like us and reward friends and punish enemies, but we can correct these false opinions by rejecting opinions that are inconsistent with true blessedness and imperishableness. (I am using "imperishableness" rather than "imperishability" because I am convinced DeWitt is correct that Epicurus held that gods are not by necessity deathless, but that they must act (and do act) to maintain their continued existence.)

Also for kicks, this is what Claude did with those five points.