Posts by Cassius

And it's good to hear from you DavidN!

Quote from Kalosyni

And, a big challenge is updating the philosophy to make it compatible for modern thinkers (and science).

"Modern thinkers" are in many cases the problem, not the solution, and you can't make opposites compatible. It would be more accurate to say that it is desirable to use new methods and technologies to explain to such "modern thinkers" as are open to the discussion the superiority of the Epicurean viewpoint.

Quote from Kalosyni

mainly the refusal to see how making contracts for peace between countries is the only avenue of peace

That's not the "only" avenue for peace. When people refuse to agree, they can fight and in some cases successfully eliminate the other side. It doesn't help the situation to imagine otherwise - thinking this only makes it more likely that it is YOUR side that is going to eliminated. That's why Epicurus regularly says that all means necessary to preserve your safety are a natural good, and that some people can and do refuse to enter agreements of mutual safety.

Quote from Kalosyni

So Epicurean philosophy which holds that gods/God is not interactive with the world or listening to prayers may appeal to some, but not appeal to others.

That is a fact that always has proven to be the case, and likely will continue to prove to be the case. And therefore those who think as we do have to take all appropriate steps to make sure that we are not eliminated. We've come far too close to exactly that result over the last 2000 years.

Quote from DaveT

In your response to me, you quoted Thos. Jefferson; is he the modern philosopher you referred to and I asked about? I must not understand your train of thought. I was thinking perhaps you were referring to 20th century philosophers as being somehow out in left field.

I am definitely considering Jefferson, who embraced Epicurus in my view very accurately, as correct in most all of his statements on these issues. I have the most relevant of his statements relating to Epicurus here: https://newepicurean.com/jefferson/

And in general it's fair to say that I am speaking against the more modern philosphers, who seem in most cases to be in agreement with Socrates that nothing is really "knowable."

Quote from DaveT

Your referral to radical skeptics, has me confused again. Am I wrong to conclude that in your use of those two words, radical skeptics mean the philosophers of ancient Greece BCE? With respect, you seem to have a bone to pick with the skeptics of old and their influence on some. I believe I understand the battle of ideas between the school of Epicurus and the Skeptics with a capital S.

"radical skeptics" is a term i use to describe anyone who claims that no knowledge of any kind is possible. This would include Socrates, although Socrates apparently was content with the contradiction that he was confident that he know nothing. This does NOT include all Greek philosophers BCE, as some taught specific doctrines. Yes it's bad to be wrong, as many of theme were in arguing things like it is impossible to walk across a room, but worse than being wrong is to take the position that it is impossible ever to be right about anything. As long as you have a standard to declare something to be "right," then you eventually have hope of being right. If you say that it's impossible to be "right" about anything, then you are in the position of the skeptics who Diogenes of Oinoanda criticized when saying that no one will ever seek the truth if they consider it impossible to find.

In general I agree that it is useful to distinguish the worst of the Skeptics with a capital "S", but unfortunately it's not sufficient to do that in many cases because the depth of this problem is not recognized in general conversation. Many people tend to think that ALL skepticism is "good" just like they thing ALL dogmatism is "bad," because they are aren't familiar with the depth of the issue.

We tend to attract here - as is our goal - people with an interest in philosophy but not deep training in it, and this becomes one of the most important initial questions to cover, which is why it's a constant topic of conversation,

Quote from DaveT

However, I'm not clear if you are referring to ancient Skepticism that has at best only a remote similarity to the modern scientific methods of finding truth only after experimental testing of any concepts of any nature until there is a consensus to rule-out or rule-in unproven opinion.

The "until there is s a consensus" illustrates the problem of generic references to "modern science" and "the scientific method" and "experts" as if using those phrases actually means anything final. There are only particular experts and scientists and particular assertions of results using any method at any time. Consensus is not a logical goal, especially in ethics, and often is later decided to be wrong.

The Epicurean viewpoint was never the "consensus" view in the ancient world, and it will never be in the future. Yet it in my view it held and holds the correct answers as to the absence of (1) supernatural forces (2) life after death, (3) absolute standards of virtue. It also presents a practical and logical approach to having confidence in the best way to live in the absence of those fictions. Therefore Epicurus makes many statements to the effect that he prefers to speak and teach correctly rather than to be concerned about the praise and acceptance of the crowd.

The short answer is that I think Epicurus was all in favor of a generic attitude of questioning claims of authority, especially when those claims do not rest on evidence observable to the senses. But Epicurus was strongly against the conclusion that confidence in any conclusion is impossible. Epicurus makes conclusion after conclusion about many topics, but he never takes "because I or he or she said so" as a reasonable basis for those conclusions.

Quote from Pacatus

refers to whatever is completely within my control versus whatever is completely out of my control – then it is an idealistic abstraction, and not useful. (And I suspect that idealism is exactly how the Stoics saw it.)

....ith regard to happiness, I equate it with pleasure (mental or physical, kinetic or katastematic). If I’m happy, I’m enjoying some pleasure. In that sense,

which calls to my mind Pacatus the question of whether to view happiness as *complete* pleasure or as some predominance of pleasure over pain. That seems to be a major point of dispute - whether to consider someone happy even when they are experiencing some degree of pain.

That's a hurdle that has to be overcome in the analysis of "absence of pain." Those who want things COMPLETELY under their control seem likely to insist on happiness being TOTAL absence of pain. I don't think Epicurus viewed it as helpful to see things in such black and white terms. Pleasure may be the "opposite" of pain, and pain not be present when pleasure is present, but if someone things that "I can't have any pleasure, or any happiness, at all so long as I am experiencing any pain," then they have set themselves up for failure.

Which I why I don't think Epicurus thought in those terms, and why we have to parse the meaning carefully.

Yes and thank you for this post. This is good information tokeep on hand. Tim Okeefe has written some very good stuff on Epicurus, but this part of his attitude has to be kept in mind. This sutuation reminds me of Cyril Bailey, whose work is extremely helpful to us, but who personally assessed Epicurus perhaps in even more negative terms that does O'Keefe here.

Here, the main problem is that he's not even trying to be open-minded about the big picture. As Okeefe well knows, Epicurus was not a technician. It's clear from Epicurus' arguments that he's basing his positions on a combination of logic AND observation. The terminology used to describe "atoms" matters only to the extent that the point is that there is at SOME point a limit of divisibility. It's totally ridiculous to talk as if just because Epicurus used different terminology than than we do now that we should throw out everything he had to say. The point is the ultimate one: We don't live forever and we know everything and we never will, so what do we expect the truth to be based on the best information at our disposal?

The big-picture conclusions are that there is nothing outside or above nature, no human life after death, and no universal ideas or moral absolutes, Those conclusions are absolutely valid today. That's the level at which Epicurus was focusing his attention, and it's ridiculous to pretend that Epicurus was doing anything else. Protons and electrons and neutrons are not big-picture conclusions. The big-picture conclusions are that everything operates naturally and without supernatural guidance, and the simple fact that we are alive doesn't give us the ability to dictate to nature what we think might be or should be the way things are.

All this is a matter of being reasonable and charitable in assessing the big picture. No doubt it possible to take that statement from Okeefe and excuse it and say Okeefe meant it in a limited way. After all, if O'keefe really thought that everything Epicurus had to say was obsolete, it's unlikely that OKeefe would have devoted so much of his career to talking about Epicurus.

Perspective is the problem we're constantly confronting. We always need to focus on the big picture and never get so lost in details that we lose sight of the real take-away.

We really need to ask every writer: Where do THEY stand on whether there are supernatural forces? Where do THEY stand on life after death? Where do THEY stand on whether the same laws should apply in Rome and Athens vs Jerusalem, and at all times past present and future? If a writer can't clearly communicate that they agree that there are no supernatural forces, that there is no life after death, and that morality and justice is contextual and not absolute, then whatever else they might be they are not in a trustworthy position to provide leadership in Epicurean philosophy.

Examining people on motives is what we do in court with Experts. Lawyers' cross-examine experts to determine how much they were paid for their opinions, and about other opinions those experts have given in other cases. Everyone brings their own biases and prejudices when they give opinions, and I don't see a better way to make decisions than we do in court. Bring to every question a sweeping and thorough examination not just of what the "expert" says is the truth, but also examine the biases and prejudices of the expert, and then in the end let each listener draw their own conclusion. In judging their credibility on interpreting Epicurus, It's important to know that Bailey was highly critical of Epicurus' conclusions about ethics, and that Okeefe has a problem with Epicurus' approach to physics.

There's no perfect system and no guarantee of success, but at least examining backgrounds and motives allows for the possibility of success, and it doesn't allow for bias and prejudice to gain a totally impregnable hold on everyone.

Of course when I approach a complicated subject I want information from experts to help me form my conclusion. But when it's a matter of life and death and I need brain surgery, it's relevant to know whether the surgeon has some personal motivation to do his best to help me, or whether he is motivated to hate my guts.

Quote

Quote from Cassius

That's a high price to pay to just to win a pat on the back from modern philosophers.

Agreeing with your post, but I don't catch your meaning of this part.

------

My explanation for this applies to much of the reason that Dave and I appear to disagree - but I don't think we are really that far apart.

I would like to be proven wrong, but my own perception is that the problems posed by skepticism and how to unwind them are much deeper than what many seem to think.

Dave and I have a legal background and we are familiar with the position that "the law" requires finality. You can't go on debating who is right and who is wrong forever on legal matters, so you have to come up with a standard of proof and a mechanism for applying it. In the English-speaking countries that has generally been done by a jury system in which we have rules of evidence as to what types of evidence can even be submitted to a jury, which is held to have the ultimate authority to find the facts of a case. It is a major issue in legal theory as to whether juries should be allowed to be ultimate factfinders, or whether that should be delegated to "experts" in particular fields.

The English common law system has traditionally held that randomly selected "jurors of our peers" are best positioned to deliver justice, even though they are not "experts" in their fields. In fact, judges instruct jurors that even where "experts" are allowed to testify as to their opinions about a case, the jurors do not have to accept their opinions. The jurors are specifically allowed by our system of justice to accept or reject some or all or none of what an expert says.

And a large part of the reason for that rule is that it is almost always possible - depending on how much money you have to spend - to find an expert who will say almost anything. Trials turn into 'battles of experts" with highly-credentialed experts on totally opposite sides of almost every question. Our system of justice has traditionally held that we are not going to delegate final decisions to anyone but the "jury of our peers" because that is where we find the most common sense and the least prejudice.

This is as stated in Jefferson's letter to Peter Carr in referencing ploughmen vs professors:

Quote

Moral Philosophy. I think it lost time to attend lectures on this branch. He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong, merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his Nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality, and not the [beautiful], truth, &c., as fanciful writers have imagined. The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted, indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call common sense. State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, & often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules. In this branch, therefore, read good books, because they will encourage, as well as direct your feelings. The writings of Sterne, particularly, form the best course of morality that ever was written. Besides these, read the books mentioned in the enclosed paper; and, above all things, lose no occasion of exercising your dispositions to be grateful, to be generous, to be charitable, to be humane, to be true, just, firm, orderly, courageous, &c. Consider every act of this kind, as an exercise which will strengthen your moral faculties & increase your worth.

Right. Everyone today is marinated in the negative meaning of "dogmatism" just like they are in the narrow and negative view of "pleasure" as an ethical guide.

I'm by no means proud or happy of every aspect of the legal profession, but there are good analogies between "the law" and what we're doing with philosophy.

In both cases we have only a limited time, and we have to find ways to come to conclusions that we can implement while we are alive. Short of war or trial by violence, the legal system gives us a method where those who can agree to accept the framework resolve disputes among themselves and move on after that.

Something very similar is going on with Epicurus. Once you decide that you can't expect to live on after death, you have to adopt a set of rules for living today and every day you have left. By no means does every question about life have to be answered, but some are so important that by getting out of bed in the morning you are taking a position on certain things being true or false.

I am often seeing comments such as "but the Socratics / Skeptics" weren't nearly as extreme as you portray them! It's always wrong to take a firm position on anything! NEVER SAY NEVER!

Some people aren't bothered by being inconsistent. They think that Emerson was great in saying "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," but they go even further and abbreviate him to leave out the foolish part and they begin to think that consistency is never of value.

-------

Gosh in looking up that reference it's worse than I remembered. here's what appears to be a more complete version:

Quote

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”

― Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance: An Excerpt from Collected Essays, First Series

That's quite a list of people who Emerson apparently admired. I'd cut him some slack for Newton and Galileo and Copernicus at least to a degree, but if someone finds themselves identifying with the majority of the rest of the names on that list they are in the wrong place with Epicurus!

--- Getting back to Pacatus' comment, I think most of us agree that Epicurus clearly held that there are times and places to be "dogmatic" and times and places not to be dogmatic.

And there are times when "consistency" is of more value than others.

But if Emerson really spoke so broadly as to say this, I'd have to conclude that he's going far beyond "poetic license." --> With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall.

Thank you for your frank and clear post. I hope you'll find the PDF helpful.

I would also suggest our reading list material, especially the two key books that we recommend (depending on one's background and level of interest) by Norman DeWitt and Emily Austin.

I would like to think that what distinguishes this forum from other locations on the internet is the seriousness and focus which we place on this very issue:

Quote from ludenbergcastle

I didn't think such a philosophy focused on the rejection of the supernatural and the pursuit of pleasure (in its proper form and understanding) existed. Subsequently, it piqued my interested as someone who had left Christianity not long ago and is looking to deconstruct from the supernatural and superstition.

Many come here because they are thinking they will find advice on simple living. There are many other places better than here to do that.

Many come here because they are focused on getting rid of mental anxiety with the least possible changes in their thoughts or lifestyle. Those people are much better off somewhere else.

Others come here because they are looking to reinforce their Buddhism or their Stoicism or their Humanism or their Nihilism with pithy quotes from another philosopher. Those people are wasting their time and need a major readjustment in perspective.

If I had to name one "target group" of people who can best profit from what we are doing here, it is those who have become disillusioned with any version of Abrahamic religion and who are looking for a clean break "from the supernatural and superstition." That's exactly what Epicurus developed 2000 years ago, and the primary focus of this forum is to help people rediscover exactly what he stood for before the Abrahamic world brushed him aside.

That's right, and it's not easy but what's the alternative? You can throw up your hands and not even try to get it right. That's what is advocated by Socrates and the radical skeptics who say it's never possible to be confident of anything. And what do you do then? - You give up studying nature and you retreat to wishful thinking about "virtue" - and let others make decisions for you.

That's a high price to pay to just to win a pat on the back from modern philosophers.

ludenbergcastle has established to me by email that this account is that of a real person who accepts the terms of service of the forum. Welcome.

Welcome ludenbergcastle !

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 24 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards and associated Terms of Use. Please be sure to read that document to understand our ground rules.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from most other philosophies, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit of truth and happy living through pleasure as explained in the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be assured of your time here will be productive is to tell us a little about yourself and your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you already have.

You can also check out our Getting Started page for ideas on how to use this website.

We have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

It's probably also a good way of looking at it to compare this to court.

If we're going to reach a conclusion about something, we have to tell the jury the standard of proof.

Telling them to just decide what's "probably" happened or happened "with a high degree of confidence" isn't what we do, especially in important criminal cases.

Quote from DaveT

Yet, what is the problem with the phrase "a high degree of confidence"?

Within philosophy, that's exactly the position Cicero and other skeptics take -- that "probability" is all anyone can ask for, and to ask for anything more than "probability" is improper.

The problem is that most reasonable people are not going to find "it is probable that you aren't going to burn for hell forever" to be a sufficiently satisfying answer.

Same with "I have a high degree of confidence you are not going to burn forever in hell or miss out on eternal heaven."

in philosophy and especially for Epicurus we are focused on normal people who need normal degrees of help, and when life or death decisions have to be made, "probability" as ultimate motivation doesn't cut it rhetorically.

Sure there are some people who find debating probabilities in a technical academic sense to be satisfying. I'd say the texts are very clear that Epicurus was not among them.

Dave I would say that you are discussing the topic of the "conflict" between "science" and "philosophy."

Each of us has to decide what we think for ourselves, but from a philosophic perspective philosophy does not yield to anyone or anything to dictate to it how to approach truth.

Religion asserts that a god can be omniscient and know everything. Epicurus rejects the possibility of such an entity so the issue of knowing everything about everything is not on the table.

What is on the table is how we as individuals are going to live and what we individually take to be proven or not proven / certain or not certain.

Quote from DaveT

Indeed Epicurus believed in gods with no evidence of their existence. Correct?

I would say that Epicurus would emphatically deny this so I would say this is incorrect. Circumstantial evidence is evidence, and Epicurus held that the circumstances of an infinite and eternal universe, with life throughout it, and with life at varying stages of success (isonomia) all strongly support the conclusion that gods who are deathless and live in a "blessed" way.

Quote from DaveT

And to follow up on this point, Epicurean theory about atoms was more a hypothesis, than a theory since he had no direct evidence of the truth of his statements, much of which parenthetically he learned from Democritus. True or false?

Whether one calls it hypothesis or theory or knowledge or whatever, Epicurus held that the circumstantial evidence supports the conclusion that indivisible particles exist and are the explanation for the regularity we see. On certain points he followed Democritus but on major issues (swerve / determinism / skepticism) he departed from Democritus.

Quote from DaveT

And that opinion only give a high degree of confidence rather than an absolute certainty.

Certainly it is the skeptical position to set up "absolute certainty" as a knowingly impossible target and thereby argue that nothing can be known for sure through the senses, and thereby assert that only through something equivalent to "ideal forms" can be held to be true. Religions assert that, and whenever someone (particular scientists" or anyone else) they are doing the same thing.

The bottom line is that Epicurus was an opponent of radical skepticism as self-contradictory and self-refuting no matter what label is placed on it. It is totally illogical to assert with certainty that nothing can be known with certainty. Therefore you need another standard of truth, and that's what Epicurus finds in the sensations, anticipations, and feelings.

Welcome to Episode 324 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.
   
This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective. We are focusing first on what is referred to as Book One, which provides an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and gives us an overview of the philosophical issues being dealt with at the time of Epicurus. This week will will continue in Section 6

Our text will come from
Cicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackam translation here:

• 
  

  

  Cicero On Nature Of Gods Academica Loeb Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

And these are those three kinds which most people believe the Peripatetics speak of: and so far they are not wrong; for this division is the work of that school. But they are mistaken if they think that the Academicians — those at least who bore this name at that time — are different from the Peripatetics. The principle, and the chief good asserted by both appeared to be the same — namely, to attain those things which were in the first class by nature, and which were intrinsically desirable; the whole of them, if possible, or, at all events, the most important of them. But those are the most important which exist in the mind itself, and are conversant about virtue itself. Therefore, all that ancient philosophy perceived that a happy life was placed in virtue alone; and yet that it was not the happiest life possible, unless the good qualities of the body were added to it, and all the other things which have been already mentioned, which are serviceable towards acquiring a habit of virtue. From this definition of theirs, a certain principle of action in life, and of duty itself, was discovered, which consisted in the preservation of those things which nature might prescribe. Hence arose the avoidance of sloth, and contempt of pleasures; from which proceeded the willingness to encounter many and great labours and pains, for the sake of what was right and honourable, and of those things which are conformable to the objects of nature. Hence was generated friendship, and justice, and equity; and these things were preferred to pleasure and to many of the advantages of life. This was the system of morals recommended in their school, and the method and design of that division which I have placed first.

But concerning nature (for that came next), they spoke in such a manner that they divided it into two parts,— making one efficient, and the other lending itself, as it were, to the first, as subject matter to be worked upon. For that part which was efficient they thought there was power; and in that which was made something by it they thought there was some matter; and something of both in each. For they considered that matter itself could have no cohesion, unless it were held together by some power; and that power could have none without some matter to work upon; for that is nothing which is not necessarily somewhere. But that which exists from a combination of the two they called at once body, and a sort of quality, as it were. For you will give me leave, in speaking of subjects which have not previously been in fashion, to use at times words which have never been heard of (which, indeed, is no more than the Greeks themselves do, who have been long in the habit of discussing these subjects).

James Randi was a famous skeptic of paranormal claims. In posting this I don't know how close his views were to those of Epicurus, but it would probably advance our canonics discussion to discuss the similarities and differences in approach.

Some of Randi's work is consistent with aspects of Lucian's comments on Epicurus in "Alexander the Oracle-Monger." On the other hand it sounds like Randi was more of a pure skeptic than was Epicurus.

If we have any people who have read about Randi in the past it might be interesting to compare his life and his approach to paranormal claims to those of Epicurus. At the very least it would probably be interesting to evaluate his challenges to paranormal claims as a method of evaluating what kinds of standards of proof are and are not appropriate to demand.

James Randi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I see that Randi's views on the existence of a supernatural god are more "agnostic" than that of Epicurus, so there's already a bright line of division there. However there are probably many other aspects of Randi's public life and interfacing with religious claims that would be worth discussing over time.

Views on religion

Randi's parents were members of the Anglican Church but rarely attended services.^[137] He attended Sunday school at St. Cuthbert's Church in Toronto a few times as a child, but he independently decided to stop going after receiving no answer to his request for proof of the teachings of the Church.^{[22]: 24:40 [c][138]}

In his essay "Why I Deny Religion, How Silly and Fantastic It Is, and Why I'm a Dedicated and Vociferous Bright", Randi, who identified himself as an atheist,^[139] opined that many accounts in religious texts, including the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus Christ, and the parting of the Red Sea by Moses, are not believable. Randi refers to the Virgin Mary as being "impregnated by a ghost of some sort, and as a result produced a son who could walk on water, raise the dead, turn water into wine, and multiply loaves of bread and fishes" and questions how Adam and Eve's family "managed to populate the Earth without committing incest". He wrote that, compared to the Bible, "The Wizard of Oz is more believable. And much more fun."^[140]

Clarifying his view of atheism, Randi wrote "I've said it before: there are two sorts of atheists. One sort claims that there is no deity, the other claims that there is no evidence that proves the existence of a deity; I belong to the latter group, because if I were to claim that no god exists, I would have to produce evidence to establish that claim, and I cannot. Religious persons have by far the easier position; they say they believe in a deity because that's their preference, and they've read it in a book. That's their right."^[139]

In An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural (1995), he examines various spiritual practices skeptically. Of the meditation techniques of Guru Maharaj Ji, he writes "Only the very naive were convinced that they had been let in on some sort of celestial secret."^[141] In 2003, he was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto.^[142]

Regarding his 2006 coronary artery bypass surgery, Randi was asked if he was tempted by religious ideas about an afterlife or if he went through it any differently than if he had been religious. Randi replied "I allowed Daniel Dennett to speak for me" referring to Dennett's essay "Thank Goodness", which Dennett wrote after a serious surgery. Summing up the essay, Randi continued:^[143]

Quote

(...) when he was recovering in the hospital he had people coming in and saying "Oh, thank God, you're doing this, that and the other", and he wrote this little essay, he said "No, never mind 'thank god' but I'll accept thank goodness. Thank the goodness of the anaesthesiologist. Thank the goodness of the nurses who empty my bedpan. Thank the goodness of the intern who sweeps the floor regularly so that I don't have to breathe too much dust. Thank the designers and makers of Dacron."

All of these things, he said, "Yes, thank their goodness but don't thank a mythical being."

And, essentially that's a contraction of it, rather severely, but that's the way I feel, yes.

In a discussion with Kendrick Frazier at CSICon 2016, Randi stated "I think that a belief in a deity is ... an unprovable claim ... and a rather ridiculous claim. It is an easy way out to explain things to which we have no answer."^[22]: 7:05He then summarized his current concern with religious belief as follows: "A belief in a god is one of the most damaging things that infests humanity at this particular moment in history. It may improve, and I see signs that it may be improving, and I'll leave it at that."^[22]: 7:40

Also don't forget the inherent ridiculousness of trying to reason with someone who rejects evidence-based reasoning. They are speaking nonsense and once they start down that road Lucretius says the ultimate response is not to engage with them further:

Against him then I will refrain from joining issue, who plants himself with his head in the place of his feet.

In both the question of knowledge and of determinism you can point out to the other person that their position is self-contradictory, but ultimately in most cases they won't care about self-contradiction since they don't care about evidence.

I modified the title of the thread just slightly to make clear that there are two kinds of evidence that must be consided in evaluating when we can be dogmatic and reach a conclusion and when we cannot.

Direct evidence is direct observation. We determine honey is sweet and snow is white by direct observation through the senses.

Indirect evidence is also called circumstantial evidence. We conclude that atoms (indivisible particles) exist even though we cannot see or touch them directly because the things we do observe directly (the circumstances or indirect observation) are seen to operate consistently with atoms being the cause of the regularity of what we do see. We therefore know atoms exist only circumstantially, but we are nevertheless sure that they do exist. We do not "wait" for more information or hold open the possibility that "maybe rather than atoms there are supernatural forces we have not yet discovered" because to do so would be sheer speculation. The decision to reject sheer speculation is at the heart of what it means to be Epicurean.

You can easily be a Muslim, Christian, or Jew and understand that eating too much ice cream will bring pain that outweighs the immediate pleasure. You cannot easily be a Muslim, Christian, or Jew and reject "faith" - which is regularly understood to be belief without "evidence."

And as Joshua brought up in our recent conversation about reasoning in Lucretius, this issue is why it is important to be able to do more than give a blank stare when the Stoics or Thomas Aquinas or others start insisting that there is a supernatural realm based on "arguments from design" or "ontological arguments" that amount to assertions based purely on speculation or word games. It is essential to have a clear understanding of when it is proper to consider something as "conclusive" and when it is not.

It is sound to conclude that atoms exist. It is not sound to conclude that supernatural forces exist.

In the podcast we will eventually address this issue of "when is it appropriate to say that we know something" by covering Philodemus' "On Signs / On Methods of Inference." We've also already covered these issues in past discussions of Lucretius Book 4 as to the possibility of knowledge and in discussions of Principal Doctrines 23 and 24.

The Lucretius material is most focused starting around Book 4 line 462 -

Again, if any one thinks that nothing is known, he knows not whether that can be known either, since he admits that he knows nothing. Against him then I will refrain from joining issue, who plants himself with his head in the place of his feet. And yet were I to grant that he knows this too, yet I would ask this one question; since he has never before seen any truth in things, whence does he know what is knowing, and not knowing each in turn, what thing has begotten the concept of the true and the false, what thing has proved that the doubtful differs from the certain?

but for many lines before and after that the topic is the same -- we understand that illusions can occur but nevertheless we learn to use the senses properly and we still reach firm conclusions after we process multiple observations.

The words 'conclusive" and "conclusion" are key. Socrates alleged that he did not conclude anything except that he could not conclude anything. This conclusion is self-contradictory BS and Epicurus concludes firmly that it must be rejected. In doing so, Epicurus is illustrating that conclusions are possible even though we are not omniscient.

EpicureanFriends Side-By-Side Lucretius

Multi-column side-by-side Lucretius text comparison tool featuring Munro, Bailey, Dunster, and Condensed editions.

handbook.epicureanfriends.com

I agree with Martin but would add as to this that we must be clear about what "conclusive" means:

Quote

Quote from Martin

We should not wait until the evidence for this is conclusive because it will never be conclusive.

In the law we convict people and put them to death on a regular basis by holding to be conclusive the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." And we do so even though we do not "see" them commit crimes directly. We accept that circumstantial evidence is amply sufficient to reach reasonable conclusions, just as we conclude that "atoms" (indivisible particles) exist without seeing or touching them directly.

It would not be reasonable or proper to require "omniscience" as some people seem to want to equate to "conclusive." "Conclusive" should be read to mean that we have sufficient evidence - clear direct and/or circumstantial evidence which is not contradicted by other clear direct or circumstantial evidence - to reach a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise we create ambiguity and doubt where none should exist.

In those cases where the direct and circumstantial evidence is insufficient to support support a clear conclusion, we "wait." In cases where clear evidence supports multiple possibilities, we do not arbitrarily choose among them but hold them all to be possible.

But we never 'wait" on the grounds that we are not omniscient or based purely on speculation that "anything is possible" or "some other undiscovered evidence *may* exist." We wait only when we have clear reason to do so, and pure speculation or insistence on "omniscience" is not a clear reason to suspend judgment.