Posts by Cassius

Speaking as Administrator, we've put a lot of effort into making clear that this is a forum for people who are - or wish to be - supporters and proponents of Epicurean philosophy.

I wish everyone well who doesn't fit within that description, but I wish them well in their pursuit of discussions outside this forum. There are many places where those who "see potential" in Epicurean philosophy and wish to improve it can post - for example on the many Reddit Epicurean or general philosophy forums. And those of us here who sometimes enjoy those discussions can go to those locations to check them out, as I do occasionally myself.

i am therefore pausing this account at least for the moment, and possibly permanently. I invite PSCHA to pursue the previous private email conversations he has had with me, and if he does so we'll then decide whether to reopen this account.

If you aren't satisfied with Epicurus' physics arguments, and you aren't satisfied with his moral arguments, probably this is a good time to ask: exactly what brings you to this forum?

As an aside to this conversation i would add (not referring to anyone here!) that a lot of people want to hedge on basic aspects of Epicurean physics such as to universe as a whole being natural and eternal, or as to the non-existence of the supernatural or of life after death.

On the other hand, not nearly so many people want to hedge on whether Epicurus was right to say that pleasure is in fact desirable and pain is in fact undesirable.

It strikes me as kind of funny that commitment to radical skepticism seems to be not nearly so strong when one's own personal pleasure and pain are involved!

Quote from phscha

however hard people like Sam Harris are trying to make you believe it's possible.

Glad to hear that you are (like me) not a fan of Sam Harris...

Quote from phscha

For my understanding, it also means that one cannot derive the Principle of Pleasure from physics, but I'm not sure whether Epicurean philosophy actually attempts that.

I don't know that anywhere on our website anyone has ever used the term "the Principal of Pleasure." Nor would I say that Epicurus would use the term either.

What I think Epicurus would say is that in a universe that is conclusively not supernatural and in which there are conclusively no "ideal forms" or standards for absolute morality, that leaves us with what Nature gives us - pleasure and pain - as the basis for our actions.

Now Epicurus also had a lot to say about how widely the word pleasure should be construed, and how we on occasion do chose pleasure when that choice leads ultimately to greater pleasure. But I would definitely say that the physics of Epicurus does feed directly into the conclusion that pleasure and pain are the touchstones of action. That is because a supernatural or idealistic basis of an absolutely morality does not in fact exist. If supernatural rewards in the hereafter or in this life were in fact available, that would totally change the pleasure/pain analysis.

Thanks for your reply and you raise excellent points which are valuable to debate.

Neither I nor anyone else here (to my knowledge) is a professional philosopher, so I am sure there are more intellectual ways to respond to the Hume's razor question than what I am about to say. With that said, I believe Epicurus took the position that it is logically determinable based on the evidence available to us that the universe was not created supernaturally and that humans do not have supernatural souls. Those are "is" components of life. Given the truth of those conclusions, they have huge implications as to how to live life, which include the rejection of claims of supernatural authority, or claims that we should live our lives based on expectations of a life after death.

Now whether that violates the contention that the "ought" cannot be derived from what "is" is something that might be debated, but I believe based on my reading of Epicurus that he held these conclusions to be persuasive, and I find them convincing as well.

Quote from phscha

But if new evidence contradicts the conclusion, the theory needs to be revised and improved. That's the only way to develop and flourish

Of course we change our opinions when facts change. However the fundamental facts that support Epicurus' reasoning on the basic issues we are discussing have not changed in recorded history, and there is absolutely no reason to expect that those facts are going to change. It therefore makes no sense whatsoever to hold open the possibility (and thereby doubt and worry) over possibilities which have absolutely no foundation.

I believe I and everyone who is a regular participant here also hold to the view that we are honest. Epicurus claimed that for himself as a major aspect of his philosophy. But being "honest" means stating the conclusion that something is settled beyond a reasonable doubt - beyond the need to debate it endlessly among friends - when the evidence and reasoning support reaching such a conclusion.

We try to make it very clear here that this forum is not a general philosophy forum, nor is it open for anyone and everyone to come here and pursue philosophical argument that is obviously in opposition to Epicurean philosophy. I hasten to add that I am not suggesting that you are doing that. In fact, it is very good for our forum for us to confront issues such as you have brought up on a regular basis. I'm hopeful that you will look around the forum, and when you do you'll see that the general tone of discussion here is probably well within your expectations.

The issue of knowledge and whether conclusions about anything are possible is fundamental to Epicurean philosophy. You've been astute enough to immediately sense that question and bring it up, so that's a good thing. Since you're obviously very sharp - and i say that without a hint of sarcasm! - I doubt you'll have any problem coming to an appropriate decision as to what type of posting will be welcomed and which would not.

In fact by confronting this issue head on you're probably well ahead of 95% of the new people who come here!

As to Emerson's statements about consistency Joshua reminded me in the most recent podcast (324 - not yet posted as of this writing) about what Cicero had to say in Tusculan Disputations. In this section he's arguing against Epicurus, but what he's saying about consistency I think most of us would agree with. I think Epicurus would agree too, and that Epicurus would defend his position on the grounds that he WAS being consistent. This particular argument shows why the meaning of "Good" is so important, and why it is so important to understand Epicurus' argument that all good ultimately resolves down to "pleasure." And that leads us directly to the expansive meaning that Epicurus gives to the term "pleasure," refusing to restrict it to physical stimulation (as Cicero accuses Epicurus of doing) but including within "pleasure" all living experience that is not painful:

Quote from Cicero in Tusculan Disputations

X.

But it is the duty of one who would argue accurately, to consider not what is said, but what is said consistently. As in that very opinion which we have adopted in this discussion, namely, that every good man is always happy; it is clear what I mean by good men: I call those both wise and good men, who are provided and adorned with every virtue. Let us see, then, who are to be called happy. I imagine, indeed, that those men are to be called so, who are possessed of good without any alloy of evil: nor is there any other notion connected with the word that expresses happiness, but an absolute enjoyment of good without any evil. Virtue cannot attain this, if there is anything good besides itself: for a crowd of evils would present themselves, if we were to allow poverty, obscurity, humility, solitude, the loss of friends, acute pains of the body, the loss of health, weakness, blindness, the ruin of one’s country, banishment, slavery, to be evils: for a wise man may be afflicted by all these evils, numerous and important as they are, and many others also may be added; for they are brought on by chance, which may attack a wise man: but if these things are evils, who can maintain that a wise man is always happy, when all these evils may light on him at the same time? I therefore do not easily agree with my friend Brutus, nor with our common masters, nor those ancient ones, Aristotle, Speusippus, Xenocrates, Polemon, who reckon all that I have mentioned above as evils, and yet they say that a wise man is always happy; nor can I allow them, because they are charmed with this beautiful and illustrious title, which would very well become Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato, to persuade my mind, that strength, health, beauty, riches, honours, power, with the beauty of which they are ravished, are contemptible, and that all those things which are the opposites of these are not to be regarded. Then might they declare openly, with a loud voice, that neither the attacks of fortune, nor the opinion of the multitude, nor pain, nor poverty, occasion them any apprehensions; and that they have everything within themselves, and that there is nothing whatever which they consider as good but what is within their own power. Nor can I by any means allow the same person, who falls into the vulgar opinion of good and evil, to make use of these expressions, which can only become a great and exalted man. Struck with which glory, up starts Epicurus, who, with submission to the Gods, thinks a wise man always happy. He is much charmed with the dignity of this opinion, but he never would have owned that, had he attended to himself: for what is there more inconsistent, than for one who could say that pain was the greatest or the only evil, to think also that a wise man can possibly say in the midst of his torture, How sweet is this! We are not, therefore, to form our judgment of philosophers from detached sentences, but from their consistency with themselves, and their ordinary manner of talking.

Quote from phscha

Why shall we keep repeating the epicurian cosmology, if we know so much more about nature now?!

Welcome Phscha! However given you have made a very specific point in regard to physics, and I better address it immediately.

This forum is dedicated to the pursuit of Epicurean philosophy, which is not tied to the terminology of 300 BC, but is tied to the fundamental conclusions that were and are valid today:

• The universe was not created by supernatural forces. As such there was no "before" or "outside" the universe, which translates into a philosophically consistent understanding that the universe as a whole is eternal and infinite.
• Human life is tied to "material" existence which may refer to matter, fields, energy, or whatever terminology is popular, but which is not supernatural in any way and is not infinitely divisible. There is therefore no life after death other than what technology may be able to extend but there is certainly no "eternal" soul.
• There are no "eternal forms" or "eternal ideas" and therefore morality and ethics are relative to circumstance. The goal of nature is the pursuit of happiness through pleasure, with the term pleasure broadly understood to mean all living existence which is not painful. Which pleasures we choose to pursue will be individual in nature, but there are no external supernatural ideal forms of the best way of life.

The remainder of Epicurean physics has always been a matter of fitting our conclusions to the observations that we make, and that's an ongoing process. We welcome all who are willing and able to realize that Epicurus was correct that the evidence provided us by nature leads to these conclusions. Modern technology and science can be used to deepen that understanding for normal people, who thereby benefit from Epicurean philosophy. On the other hand, there are those who prefer to use modern technology and science in opposition to Epicurean philosophy, most frequently in the service of some form of radical skepticism or deference to self-appointed "experts." This forum is limited to those who are in the first category.

I presume that you'll be ok with this general framework, but if you're not then you'll be better off posting somewhere else.

I regret if this post seems overly frank, but I hope you and others here will appreciate it. We get all sorts of people who come here with all sorts of agendas. The agenda of THIS forum is to better understand Epicurus' philosophy and how we might apply it ourselves. Our objective is not to free-lance on physics or any other aspect related to Epicurean philosophy.

I think most everyone who spends time reading closely into Epicurus and following our discussions here comes to understand that this is the best approach.

Pscha confirms their account request this way:

Quote

This is to confirm my request for a new account.

I hold interest in Epicurian philosophy and its revival. Looking for exchange with like-minded individuals

Welcome phscha !

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!

All these are difficult issues that everyone has to address, but the first step is seeing that they are in fact issues.

Quote from DaveT

OK. But surely you don't have a problem with relying on expert opinion and consensus of experts on any specific issue when we as average people have zero ability to know about the topic. We all have to draw the line somewhere on what we believe is true, like your 1 to 3 above, and where we don't believe them to be true. We have to trust expert consensus on specific topics that are far beyond our knowledge when making important decisions. For example, I don't ingest anything that the experts say causes cancer in mice, even though I have no idea if it is possible I'll get cancer, too.

Certainly if I want brain surgery I am going to look for someone I conclude to be an "expert." Even in recent years regarding such things as diet and covid and many other chemicals there is raging debate on safety. It's probably not useful to get too far into specific examples but when there are experts who say exactly opposite things it's not sufficient to rely on expert consensus. At those points you simply have to bring to do your best to educate yourself on the conflicting opinion and use your best individual judgment on which expert to follow.

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 thinks 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.