I wasn't sure the best place to post this...

In the New Member Meet & Greet last night, Cassius asked what triggered me to abandon Catholicism, and then later asked if I had any book recommendations. I didn't have good answers at the time, but I remembered something later.

Probably the book that pushed me over the edge from Catholic-by-inertia was Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason.

After that, I also spent some time reading textual criticism of the Bible, I particularly recall Albert Schweitzer's The Quest of the Historical Jesus. But also more recent works in that area since the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls.

Those aren't Epicurean (obviously). And Paine is pushing Deism.

And I wouldn't recommend them to committed Christians (to avoid making enemies!).

But for people who are fed up with Christianity but just can't bring themselves to reject it completely, maybe those would be useful.

Not to sound like a skeptic, but to me, this kind of thing is a reminder of how much we really don't know - even in areas that we tend to assume modern science has pretty well figured out.

This is especially irritating in the "how to be an epicurean" genre of books when they get into specific, supposedly scientific, lifestyle advice, psychology, etc.

Reminds me of an anecdote about reading a news article about the field you work in, and thinking, "That is so misleading! Lots of people disagree about that. That's not even what the paper said! The paper they're referencing was retracted 6 months ago!" Then you read an article about a subject with which you're less familiar, and you don't realize it may well have all the same issues.

Now back to being dogmatic.

Quote from Cassius

I think I see why it is tempting to include a summary statement about the level of bodies with their emergent properties being just as "real" as the level of atoms and void. I see that myself as a hugely important point to make as the way to understand atomism that does not lead to nihilism/despair

To me, it just seems obvious that it's all one reality. I can't even imagine thinking otherwise.

If anything, I'd go the opposite direction: what I see around me and interact with every day is obviously real; it's what I can't see that I would be tempted to question.

To someone who sees atomism as leading to nihilism or despair, I'd say they're forgetting the part about relying on the senses.

Using the right words helps too. Different aspects of one reality.

Quote from Cassius

Todd in your item 4 "this idea" is a reference to point 3, or to something else. I agree with all your points but wanted to be sure I understood this one.

I'm referring to their entire #18.

In reading the texts you quoted yesterday, I just don't see how this is any kind of key takeaway. I couldn't even see where it was explicitly stated. Implied, OK...but does that qualify it to be a fundamental principle?

(I mean it's obviously subjective as to what would qualify, as Nate has amply shown. This one seems like a big stretch to me.)

From my perspective, I see 4 issues (but I reserve the right to identify more!)

1. Levels. This is just about terminology to me. I don't think I have any concerns about the ideas being described (so far as I understand them). But "2 levels of reality" sounds Platonic. It sounds kind of close to "2 realities". As Cassius has noted, if there are multiple levels, is one better, or more important somehow? It also has kind of a gnostic tinge...like there is secret knowledge about other levels of reality that will eventually be revealed to those who progress in their studies. Just everything about the word feels wrong to me. All this would be resolved by just using "aspect" or some other word instead of "levels". To me, this is about clarity of explanation.
2. Two. If there are multiple levels or aspects, why only 2?
3. Timeless. I think I know where they're getting this from. If they just mean "eternal" or always existing, I'm fine with that, I just think they should use a different word. I suspect they may mean something else, and I would disagree. I'd be happy to expand if anyone wants to dive into it.
4. I don't think this idea deserves to be elevated to the level of a fundamental principle, or whatever they are calling them. As I've said before, this is not even an attribute of reality. It is a matter of the perspective of the observer.

I had a difficult time figuring out what the image for corrosive desires was. (I now see they are credit cards.)

Quote from Nate

As Todd mentioned, #18 seems almost Platonic, and I do not find support for this proposition in Epicurus’ texts. I may be missing something in translation, but at this point I do not accept this one.

They also claim that this is proven because the opposite is invalid.

What is the opposite of 2 levels of reality? One, three, ten? Zero? Offhand, I can think of atomic/sub-atomic, molecular, cellular, <whatever you want to call the human-scale things>, geological, cosmological. I'm sure there are others, and also that the people who specialize in those fields break them down even further.

I'd be happy to talk about different aspects of reality instead of levels. "Aspect" implies an observer, rather than something inherent in the thing observed.

Thanks Onenski for bumping this thread and bringing it to my attention!

Another book to read (or re-read, I have the original, but it sounds like the updates were substantial).

Another way of stating my issue with the "two levels of reality" (or perhaps another problem with it)...

The so-called "two levels" are not actually any property (or accident) of reality. The two levels are a result of the limits of our ability to perceive reality. There is what we can perceive and what we cannot perceive. Reality is just what is.

If at some time in the distant future, humans evolved the ability to see (or otherwise perceive) atoms directly, would reality have changed in any way? No, only our ability to perceive it would have changed.

Yeah, I get the point. I guess I just don't like the sound of two levels of reality. Sounds dangerously close to "two realities".

I'm not seeing anything in the Letter to Herodotus or Book 1 that I take to be suggesting 2 levels of reality. I only noticed some references to there being things we can see and things we can't see. (I was skimming quickly, so maybe I missed something.)

That seems a far cry from saying there are 2 levels of reality. You might as well say there are things we can smell and things we can't smell.

If anyone has a more specific reference for this "two levels" idea, I'd appreciate it.

Quote from Nate

18. There are two levels of reality, the level of atoms within the void that is timeless and the level of the sensible world set in time. The opposite holds no validity."

This is new to me, and a bit surprising. Did Epicurus say this? Where is it coming from?

Sounds almost Platonic.

Quote from Kalosyni

What good is knowing your destination if you don't know which road to take to get there?

It's a necessary first step to getting there, isn't it?

Would you blindly follow a road if you didn't know where it was taking you? Maybe you are simply enjoying the trip for it's own sake. That's fine, but still, you'd want to know that it's not taking you into the middle of a war zone (for example).

Quote from Cassius

The reason allegories and parables are useful, like art and music and the like, is that they help people get a firm grip of the core of the issue and hold onto it confidently when troubles and challenges arise, as they inevitably do. The Michelle Pinto graphic crystalizes the anti-supernatural aspect of Epicurean philosophy in the "one picture is worth a thousand words" way. Music is similarly effective.

I was discussing something like this with my 8-year old recently.

She was trying to impress me with the fact that she had memorized the lyrics to an entire song. I tried (possibly failed) to explain how having the music to go along with it made the words of the song far more memorable.

I can easily recall the words to songs I liked (or even dumb TV commercials) from 25 years ago.

Quote from Cassius

I don't see why the observation of thought processes is anything special or different from making mental note of anything else. For example, writing out one's thoughts and playing with the words - does that require a special aspect of the canon for some reason?

What I'm trying to describe is more than just a mental process. It seems to me that it is a direct source of knowledge about an aspect of reality - just not external reality.

Quote from Cassius

I think that as Joshua observed repeatedly during the podcast,what we are really talking about here is contact with the outside world.

I think you're probably right that Epicurus intended the canon to be strictly about knowledge of the external world. Unfortunately then it's not a complete epistemology (in my view). It would be sufficient for physics. When it comes to ethics, I think more could have been said.

Quote from Cassius

I am thinking that this entire discussion is not devoted to introspection, but how we make judgments about things in the outside world. Introspection is certainly an important subject but I don't gather it is really what is in issue here in combating skepticism.

The form of introspective knowledge I'm thinking about actually is important in making judgments about the outside world - specifically about the behavior of other people and the best ways of interacting with them. It's the basis for empathy.

Quote from Don

Your discussion of consciousness aware of itself brought to mind the capacity to be aware of watching your own thoughts. I can easily think "I need to stop thinking about lunch" and realize I need to stop thinking about lunch and redirect my thoughts to the task at hand. Noting one's thoughts as they come up in your mind is a common method of mindfulness meditation. So, knowing that we're thinking particular thoughts is a common occurrence.

This is something I've been thinking about, and not seeing how it would fit into Epicurean epistemology.

Not only can we observe our own thoughts, but doing so is essential to make sense of other people's actions. That is, to know that other people are not mechanically responding to stimuli; they have desires, and are aiming at ends, just like we do.

So that seems like a legitimate and important source of knowledge, but how does it fit into Epicurus' system?

• Is it knowledge of reality? I'd say it is, but then how would it fit into the canon?
• It's definitely not a feeling, and I don't think it is what Epicurus was describing as anticipations.
• Is it a sensation? I think that's the best fit. It is an observation, but it's an observation of internal reality rather than external. That seems acceptable to me - the human mind is part of nature too - but it might seem like a slippery slope. And it is very different from the traditional senses.
• Or would you say this is just something Epicurus overlooked?

To be clear, I'm referring strictly to the observing of one's own mental processes. The extrapolation to understanding other people's actions definitely involves additional reasoning.

If I were doing this, some of the things I'd try to show:

• Outside the cave is just what it looks like, not any kind of allegory. Just the real world.
• The cave is labelled Plato's Cave, maybe even with Plato somewhere directing operations
• Ideas for images projected on the wall:
  
  • supernatural religion
  • Providence
  • Fate
  • fear of death
  • fear of divine punishment
  • fear of almost anything, really
  • following orders or going along with everyone else vs pursuing what gives you pleasure

But I'm not an artist, so take this as just throwing out ideas.

I guess what I was trying to say above is: the cave should be an Epicurean metaphor.

It's really quite accurate to call it Plato's Cave, though. His ideas are largely responsible for chaining people in the cave in the first place. He advised rulers to do exactly that in the same goddamned book!

Quote from Cassius

Michele's friend's "breaking the chains" graphic is almost a mirrored response to the Platonic cave metaphor.

I don't think I've seen this graphic; maybe it refers to exactly what I'm about to say...

Whenever I think of the cave metaphor, I can't help but give it a meaning exactly the opposite of Plato's. It's the idealists and manipulators who have people chained in the cave focused on their false reality, while the true reality of nature is outside waiting for us to discover it.

Maybe it's just me, but that seems like a far more natural interpretation than Plato's, where everything outside the cave is an allegory. No...the stuff outside the cave is just what it looks like: the real world. What goes on inside the cave almost literally describes social media, virtual reality, etc.

Quote from Little Rocker

The 'with whom' gives away my decision to go with 'persons,' but basically, you would have reason to translate it either way. That said, the opening construction is loosely the same in KD 40, and it does seem pretty clear there he's talking about people. So who knows, really?

For me, your mention of the opening construction of PD40 reinforces my opinion that PD39 & 40 on are really a continuation of the justice discussion, and social relations more broadly: not all "things", but also not really friendship either.

PD39 & 40 both start off with a reference to security from threats. I suspect those refer to threats from other people, which is precisely the aim of justice, but there is no need to assume that. I'm happy to concede that Epicurus is talking about any type of threat to our enjoyment of pleasure. However, it does suggest that these two PDs are closely related.

PD39 is about social relations. I am assuming that most of PD39 is talking about people.

1) "Homophyla" and "Allophyla" have too many "people" connotations to ignore without a good reason

2) It just makes a lot more sense of the rest of the PD, in my opinion

3) Several translators seem to agree, though not all

If you accept that PD39 is talking about people, then there are strong suggestions of references to justice.

Epicurus says we should try to treat as many people as possible like kin. "Like kin" implies more than mere justice. It would include justice, of course, but goes beyond. I'd call it something like active cooperation. The "as many people as possible" part of that doesn't sound like friendship to me though, because we are advised to extend it to as many people as possible. Our friends would be a subset of these relationships.

There are some people with whom we can't productively cooperate. But we also prefer not to make enemies of them. I would say these are the people we deal with by simply agreeing not to harm each other. Justice, and nothing more.

And then there are the people who won't even agree not to harm us. Or they do agree, but then harm us anyway. Epicurus says we should avoid them. Good advice, whether or not that is what Epicurus meant. And the fact that it is good advice is yet another point in favor of this interpretation.

Finally, PD40 describes the benefits of following the above procedure: the ability to live pleasantly with friends.

An important point about my interpretation of PD40 is that the friends with whom you live pleasantly are (probably) not the same people from whom you had to secure protection!

Some translations of PD40 make it sound like you obtain confidence and security by being friends with everyone around you. That might work if it was possible, but few of us are in a position to carefully curate our neighbors, classmates, co-workers, etc. Epicurean philosophy is supposed to work for everyone, not just an elite few.

My view of PD40 is more like, "Being confidently secure from your neighbors (those around you), now live pleasantly with your friends."

Epicurus never uses philia in PD39 or 40, only above in PD27 & 28. That was the "section" on friendship, IMO.