Good point! I did not think about this.

But is not the ability to distinguish pleasure and pain the second faculty of Epicurus' "tripod of truth"? This would suggest that Epicurus assumed that pain and pleasure are more or less the same for all humans.

But I understand that people have indeed different desires that make them happy, but it is probably such a specific issue that only affects one individual without the need to achieve an agreement with others. Agreements are only necessary, when we make a common effort to understand the world (science) or need to establish a social contract to coexist without violence. The question whether to have a pizza or a steak for dinner does not really require a debate. Each individual can decide this for himself.

In logic there are no opinions, only conclusions. And there cannot be two equally valid conclusions based on the same data.

If two persons disagree, then either a logically fallacy was committed in the deduction from the data or one person has data that the other one does not have. The purpose of a dispute among rational people is therefore to exchange these relevant data, so that they will necessarily agree on the conclusion. There is no place left for opinions.

Even the statement that a question is inconclusive based on the available data is a conclusion in itself. To be inclined either one or the other way, while the available data is inconclusive, would already be a fallacy.

Indeed there are several contradicting definitions of a god in circulation.

There is the monotheist definition of a god as an omnipotent creator of all that exists. This definition implies a self-contradiction. So it is pointless to discuss it.

(The term "creator" would mean an external cause of all that exists, which is a paradox, because it would mean that the creator is not part of all that exists and therefore non-existent.)

I usually define a god as anything that is worshiped as such.

This definition simply describes the phenomenon that humans worship stuff.

In Roman tradition the gods belonged into three categories or combinations of them:

1. Natural phenomena - e.g. Tellus (Gaia, the Earth), Caelus (Uranus, the sky), Tiberinus (the Tiber river)

2. Actual historical persons - e.g. Quirinus (Romulus, founder of Rome), Caesar and Augustus

3. Abstract terms - e.g. Iustitia (the principle of justice), Pax (the principle of peace), Concordia (the concept of harmony among people)

It would be absurd to deny the existence of any of these gods. Therefore the term "atheist" is meaningless, if it does not specify, which definition of a god it denies.

The most foolish people are modern (mostly Christian) atheists and agnostics that deny the existence of the creator god, but in order to do so they willingly accept the illogical and self-contradictory definition of the Christians. Some of them even defend their position by shifting the burden of proof back to the monotheists. So in effect they only disagree with the monotheist about the probability of god's existence. They fail to realize the irrationality of the question itself, since it uses an invalid definition.

Let me address the three mentioned issues:

1. Black Holes:

It is probably not the right place to go into astrophysical details and apparent flaws in current theories (According to General Relativity time stands still at the event horizon, therefore nothing can ever cross it and reach the point where not even light can escape.).

For an Epicurean there is a different problem: Which of the proposed effects of black holes have we actually perceived with our senses (or instruments)? The Hawking radiation for example cannot be measured. It can only be mathematically deducted. So what is its relevance for us, if we do not experience it? If we had measurable data, we could easily form explanations and theories. The fewer data we have, the more difficult the explanation becomes. But at the same time it is less important for us and our wellbeing.

For Epicurus observation comes first. The purpose of science is only the explanation of these observations and how good this explanation is for future observations.

Unfortunately modern theoretical physics works reversed. They come up with a theory, and then they search desperately for observations to confirm it.

If we have no observation, we do not need a theory.

2. Social Injustice

In your example not the social injustice of the worker in Thailand is the problem, but the pressure on our own labor market and the reduced salaries of us and our friends (reduced pleasure).

Insisting on fair working conditions and wages in Thailand is not the only possible solution, but a solution can also be reached by import tariffs to name just one example.

Justice for people we have no covenant (contrat social) with, should not worry us. Often outside intervention causes more harm than benefit ("The road to hell is paved with good intentions"). I would say that the Thai workers know best, what is good for them. If everyone cares for himself, everyone is taken care of.

This way we avoid unnecessary worries and unnecessary conflict.

3. Randomness in Macroscopic Events

Under normal pressure I would only expect small bubbles to have slightly higher temperatures than 100° C, bevor they evaporate. I doubt that this would be possible for large quantities like a cubic meter of water.

Historic events can depend on individual persons. This is true (similar to Schroedinger's Cat whose life depends on a quantum event). But the social circumstances usually trigger this event sooner or later.

Isaac Asimov described in his "Foundation" series a new branch of science dealing with the prediction of historical developments not by predicting singular incidents, but statistical analysis of social developments. He called it "psychohistory".

There are also recent scientific papers that seem to prove Asimov right. (e.g. https://firstmonday.org/article/view/3663/3040#p4)

The more data we look at, the more predictable major developments become.
So both phenomena have their place: Epicurus' swerve for particles and free will of individuals, determinism for huge objects or group behavior.

------------------------------------------------------------

Nice to see that you are in Thailand! I plan to relocate there in March.

Even Stoic philosophers like Seneca warn against asceticism:

Seneca: Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium V

Quote

[I] .... Illud autem te admoneo, ne eorum more qui non proficere sed conspici cupiunt facias aliqua quae in habitu tuo aut genere vitae notabilia sint; [II] asperum cultum et intonsum caput et neglegentiorem barbam et indictum argento odium et cubile humi positum et quidquid aliud ambitionem perversa via sequitur evita. Satis ipsum nomen philosophiae, etiam si modeste tractetur, invidiosum est: quid si nos hominum consuetudini coeperimus excerpere? Intus omnia dissimilia sint, frons populo nostra conveniat. [III] Non splendeat toga, ne sordeat quidem; non habeamus argentum in quod solidi auri caelatura descenderit, sed non putemus frugalitatis indicium auro argentoque caruisse. Id agamus ut meliorem vitam sequamur quam vulgus, non ut contrariam....

"[1].... I warn you, however, not to act after the fashion of those who desire to be conspicuous rather than to improve, by doing things which will rouse comment as regards your dress or general way of living. [2] Repellent attire, unkempt hair, slovenly beard, open scorn of silver dishes, a couch on the bare earth, and any other perverted forms of self-display, are to be avoided. The mere name of philosophy, however quietly pursued, is an object of sufficient scorn; and what would happen if we should begin to separate ourselves from the customs of our fellow-men? Inwardly, we ought to be different in all respects, but our exterior should conform to society. [3] Do not wear too fine, nor yet too frowzy, a toga. One needs no silver plate, encrusted and embossed in solid gold; but we should not believe the lack of silver and gold to be proof of the simple life. Let us try to maintain a higher standard of life than that of the multitude, but not a contrary standard...."

I am surprised that there are so many proponents of asceticism among Epicureans. The stereotype is that Epicureans were unrestrained hedonists and Stoics ascetics. Neither is probably true, instead their lifestyle seemed to have been similar. The actual hedonists were the Cyrenaics and the ascetics were the Cynics.

What Epicurus taught was ... well... common sense.

The luxury that we can afford depends on our resources. And in their use we have to set priorities. At the same time we have to take care that an excess of pleasure does not endanger our wellbeing (health, reputation, friendships). "ΜΗΔΕΝ ΑΓΑΝ" (nothing in excess) - a Delphic motto and the golden mean, which is also central to Aristotle's ethics.

Yes, the concept of pleasure goes beyond money. And the difficulty is often to find out what exactly it is that gives the most pleasure. Many go wrong here, so they set the wrong priorities in life. I am not even sure, if I have found it for myself.

PD 15: "The natural desires are easily obtained and satisfied, but the unnatural desires can never be satisfied."

For me the question of pleasure is mostly a question of efficiency. Since our resources are limited, we have to manage them wisely. We should not waste them on things of low importance like excessive luxury, but on things that really matter tous, i.e. we have to keep focused.

Sometimes possessions cause more worries to us than actual enjoyment. This is when asceticism gives more pleasure than unrestrained desire for luxuries.

Warren Buffett once recommended to put all the savings simply into an ETF tracking the S&P 500 and forget about it. On the long run you cannot go wrong with it.

I see you really have an intuitive aversion against Stoicism. This is the true Epicurean spirit!

However I see that both philosophies have a lot in common, more than either side would admit. Even Seneca and M. Aurelius cannot avoid quoting Epicurus from time to time. The difference between both is that Stoic physics has become obsolete, Epicurean physics has not.

Re: 1a: One of the major obstacles to ataraxia (ΑΤΑΡΑΞІΑ / happiness) these days is worrying about things that we do not need to worry about. Even science is concerned too much about irrelevant issues (like your example the "far side of the moon") .

As Epicurus stated in PD11: "If fears relating to the heavens did not disturb us, and if the terrors of death did not concern us, and if we had the courage to contemplate the natural limits of pain and of desire, we would have no need to study the nature of things."

Why do we need unverifiable theories about black holes, if we have never encountered one?

And regarding ethics: Why do we need to demand social justice for workers in India or China, if we never met one? A lot of unnecessary conflict and suffering is caused by getting involved in things that do not affect us and that we therefore cannot understand in their complexity.

This is what I would call "things indifferent". It is helpful to understand the concept in order to achieve ataraxia.

Re: 2: Randomness applies to microscopic details. This is where our freedom lies. On a statistical level, the deterministic laws of cause and effect apply.

It is impossible to predict how an individual will act. But it is quite easy to predict how a large group of people will act. It is impossible to tell, if a particular man is taller than a particular woman without specific data about their height. But it is easy to say that a large group of men will be taller than a large group of women.

Determinism applies to statistics and macroscopic scales. Randomness and probability apply to individual instances.

As individuals we have free will, as a group our behavior is predictable.

This is why the swerve is important on a quantum scale, while macroscopic events obey strict causality.

Whether the Parcae (Greek: ΜΟΙΡΑΙ) or Fortuna (Greek: ΤΥΧΗ) ultimately rule the world is a very fundamental question and the reason why Stoicism and its belief in determinism has become obsolete.

The three Parcae (Norma, Decima, Morta / ΚΛΩΘΩ, ΛΑΧΕΣΙΣ, ΑΤΡΟΠΟΣ) represent determinism. This means the future is unchangeable. Fortuna on the other hand represents randomness. It means the future is uncertain and can be changed by our actions.

Until the beginning of the 20th century determinism was the prevalent view. It agreed with Newton's physics. He understood the world as a complex clockwork. If one knew the state of each particle in the universe, one would infallibly be able to calculate and predict exactly the future.

This view was proven wrong by quantum mechanics. We now know that the future state of particles are described by a wave function (Schroedinger Equation) of probabilities, which has more than one possible solution. The future can therefore not be predicted and is uncertain. Every present state has many possible futures. Which possible outcome will occur, depends on the observer and has a probability.

Epicurus had realized already 2,300 years earlier that free will is incompatible with determinism. The existence of free will was an observable fact. Therefore the Stoic belief of determinism contradicted empirical evidence.

Determinism is essential for the Stoic dichotomy of control. The Stoics taught that all of the outside world is not under our control and are therefore things indifferent (res indifferentes), independent from the question whether they are desirable or undesirable. Only our thoughts are under our control. And they can be virtuous or not. If they are virtuous, they are good, if they are not, than they are bad.

Therefore the Stoics were not interested in the outcome of their action, because they believed it was not under their control anyway. Only the virtue of an action was relevant to them. A Stoic would go into a battle, even if it was extremely unlikely to win, if the battle was virtuous. The outcome of the battle would be indifferent to him, because he believed that he had no control over it to begin with. This created an absurd situation, which was often criticized by Epicureans (e.g. Lucretius).

The dichotomy of control is still a very helpful tool, if applied correctly. An Epicurean knows that he has free will. Therefore his actions often have an influence on the outcome of a situation. If there is a situation where his actions have no influence on the outcome, it is indeed a thing indifferent. If his actions can influence the outcome, he will choose the course of action, which is more likely to achieve the desirable outcome.

Even an Epicurean does not need to worry about things he cannot control (e.g. eventual death) or do not affect him (e.g. problems of people that he does not know). These would be things indifferent. But if something affects him and his actions have an influence on the outcome, then a decision is required and it is not indifferent.

This Epicurean view is actually far more logical (i.e. rational) than the Stoic approach, which usually worships logic over everything.

The fact that Fortuna, not the Fates (Parcae), controls the universe, changes everything. This is where Stoic philosophy went wrong and where Epicureanism was proven right once again.

Thank you for the warm welcome.

I learned about Epicurus first in our philosophy class in school. However our philosophy teacher, although a wise man otherwise, was no friend of Epicurean philosophy and used to disprove him from the viewpoint of Christian theology, which in itself is inspired by Stoicism.

So it took me many years to rediscover Epicurus, to a not insignificant part thanks to your books, Cassius.

To me Epicurus is the most amazing of all Greek and even modern philosophers. He makes no arbitrary assumptions like the Stoics or Platonists. Everything is based on empirics and logical deduction.

This is not only important for Epicurean ethics, but especially for physics. Epicurus is the only one of the ancient philosopher whose teachings about physics have not become obsolete with modern scientific discoveries. He did not only foresee modern particle physics, but also quantum mechanics with no other tools than precise observation and applied reason.

Epicurus' ethics that does not rely on transcendental premises could serve as a smallest common denominator for all human beings to agree upon and live peaceful and in harmony without fanaticism, which results from ambitious, but unprovable assumptions.

This is what I find so fascinating about Epicurus.

So far I have only read an English translation of Lucretius' "De Rerum Natura" many years ago, but I have improved my knowledge in Latin meanwhile, so that I will try to read it in the original version, as soon as I find time.

I am happy that I have found likeminded people here in this forum.

P.S.: My user name is the Latinized version of my name. It was given to me when joining Nova Roma some years ago.

I have found the e-books of Cassius Amicus the most valuable resources for Epicurean philosophy in the Internet. So I am happy to be allowed to join this forum.

Here are my thoughts about the aforementioned topics:

Existence of supernatural gods

Nothing, which is relevant, is beyond empirical investigation. Because if something has an effect on us, then it can be empirically investigated. And if it has no effect on us, then it is irrelevant. Therefore the gods cannot be supernatural. They are either natural, i.e. subject to empirical investigation, or irrelevant.

Pre-birth or post-death existence of souls

The state after death is the same as before birth. And since we cannot remember anything before birth, it is probably not important.

Existence of "ideals" elsewhere in the universe

Ideals are concepts of our mind. They have no independent existence apart from their usefulness for our thinking.

Whether knowledge is possible

We can know everything that we need to know. If something affects us, then we have plenty of information at our disposal to form our theories about it. If something affects us only a little, then we have little information to form a theory, but it is also of little concern to us. If something does not affect us at all, then we have no information about it to form any theory, but it is also of no concern to us.

Absolute truth is irrelevant. Knowledge is only relevant as far as it is useful for our life.

Role of reason, the senses, anticipations, and feelings in knowledge

Knowledge is based on observations (senses) and logical deductions from them (reason).

Anticipations are the tools that our mind uses for logical reasoning.

And feelings (positive or negative qualia) tell us what to seek and what to avoid, which is the purpose of all logical reasoning.

I generally agree with Epicurus with the exception of Epicurus' assumption that there is no pleasure beyond the avoidance of pain. There is positive pleasure. Therefore withdrawal from society and a passive life to avoid any unpleasant adversities is not the ultimate goal of happiness.

This is the summary of my views of Epicurean philosophy.