New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
For that reason, we curate the forum along the major lines stressed by advocates such as Lucretius and Diogenes of Oinoanda and Philodemus. For those who want no advocacy and guard rails of any kind, there's always Reddit. Both (and other variations as well) have their legitimate places.
I'm not sure how to take this comment to my statement above. Please explain if you are speaking to me as "one of those"?
I'm glad to know that quote from Hawking as he certainly has a sterling reputation in "science." But in my view Hawking has no Epicurean credentials and he's clearly treading into philosophy and ethics by using inflammatory references to the human race as chemical scum.
Hawking meant the phrase to explain our cosmic insignificance not as a perjorative.
Epicurus' fundamental pivotal importance to me is, at its heart, the firm knowledge that the universe is material, governed by natural laws, not created by supernatural beings, and gods (which are NOT supernatural to him) have no interest in us. I don't need to believe in intermundia, cosmoi, gods, etc. to be an Epicurean living in the 21st century of the common era.
I enjoyed your overall post in which you ended with the above thought. I guess I'm not an Epicurean but rather a student of Epicurean thought and an adopter of many of his methodologies for discovering knowledge.
I appreciate all the comments made on my original questions and observations. I often look for similarities in teachings before and after Epicurus.
I hope this doesn't stir up a hornets nest from this thread (which everyone is probably fatigued over) But, I've begun learning about Plotinus' birthing of Neoplatonism; the eternal One, the Intellect, and the Nous. It seems like some of the arguments made here, supporting Epicurus' righteous belief in the existence of any or all gods got a bad rap from Plotinus who rejected Epicureans.
I don't know if anyone else will chime in, so thank you Cassius . It's so sad that the extent fragments, the letters, and Lucretius are all we have to resolve the issue of how he could believe in gods that neither he or anyone had ever sensed with the five senses, nor could know by prolepsis since no one had ever sensed them by experience.
But since he was acclaimed for speaking frankly, when he says there are gods, to me, he believes they exist without evidence.
If he is being inconsistent in his methodology of discovering the reality of the gods, it does not weaken his reasoning and his reasons to teach careful pleasure is easy and pain is fleeting and avoidable. Those being true, Happiness is achievable. In a way, the apparent inconsistency of methodology illuminates Epicurus' common humanity.
P.S. So, to recap my thoughts underlying the subject here: Epicurus says nothing comes from nothing; atoms are eternal building blocks of all other matter; the soul and the body are one material being; the gods are corporal. So, he thinks they are composed of matter; and they exist blessedly.
Yet, still scratching my head: Under this, his gods being immortal are coexistent with eternal atoms, even though the gods are composed of atoms?
Titus, @Brian, Cassius Thank you for the input to my question of whether or not Epicurus truly believed in the Greek gods' existence.
I still don't understand how Epicurus actually believed there were Greek Gods from the Chat GPT dialogue, or the statements or citations you've provided above.
If no one had ever actually seen the Greek Gods how could Epicurus have believed they actually existed? To rely on their existence because everyone believes in them doesn't seem consistent. Can this question be answered in two, or three or four sentences before being supported by authorities?
Display MoreThis ChatGPT dialogue was fun to read. Since I lack deep insight to all of Epicurus' teachings or familiarity with various commentaries' supporting for his belief in the existence of Greek gods (the only ones he knew of, perhaps?) I wonder if the following quote from it is correct.
This is why, in Epicurean theology, the argument for the gods is not merely "people have a conception of gods." The stronger claim is that there is a universal and persistent prolepsis of blessed and imperishable beings that survives beneath all the false cultural additions. Whether that argument succeeds is another question, but it is more subtle than simply inferring existence from a concept.
Viewed this way, LLMs may actually illuminate the Epicurean distinction between prolepsis and opinion.
The model's internal representations resemble prolepses.
Its generated outputs resemble opinions.
What it lacks is sensation, the corrective mechanism that Epicurus regarded as essential for separating true opinions from false ones.At first I thought, well he never experienced a god, so how could he say he knows of them from prolepsis. So I tucked that away and kept reading hoping for an answer to a question I've had for a long time. That is, did he really believe in the gods, or did he know the Greeks would have shut down his school if he disclaimed their existence and not support by evidence from the senses.
And then I came to the ending of the ChatGpt where it said: "For example, all peoples possess some prolepsis of blessed and imperishable gods. Epicurus regarded this as evidence that the gods exist, even if many false opinions are attached to them.
An LLM's internal representations do not have this status. They merely reflect statistical patterns in its training data. If a society collectively believed dragons existed, an LLM would develop a strong representation of dragons without dragons being real."
Did Epicurus then possibly or probably not believe in the Greek gods, but allowed that false opinions of the existence of gods do no harm since they only exist as opinions, and not fact?
This type of discussion is so interesting to me, but I always need to unpack the definitions of words being used. Here's what I got from Google:
AI is generally classified into three main capability levels:
Artificial Narrow Intelligence (ANI): AI trained to accomplish specific, highly specialized tasks, such as speech recognition, image classification, or playing chess. This is the only type of AI in widespread use today.
Artificial General Intelligence (AGI): A theoretical form of AI that would possess cognitive abilities entirely equivalent to a human, allowing it to perform any intellectual task a human can.
I see that there is no AI existing today that can create anything in the sense of human creativity. AI can repeat what humans have created, and loaded into AI data bases. That is all.
If people can enjoy Elvis Presley in full costume printed onto velour by a human and hung in their bedrooms, who am I to judge their taste? Same goes for anyone enjoying AI random art based on data bases, or short stories generated by random scene selections from data bases.
Will I ever want to use AI as it exists today to expand the germ of an idea I have as a novelist, and then claim the final product was my work alone? No, I can't do it. Pride perhaps but, no.
Can I judge anyone who takes pleasure from reading a novel written mostly by current AI, or any future AI? I think not. Who am I to deny anyone such pleasure? Would I read such a novel written in that fashion? I'd give it a shot, and who knows, perhaps I'd enjoy it.
TauPhi On being a Greek god. Hell, no! If they were considered corporeal and immortal, sooner or later existence would become a boring repetition of all their yesterdays. If incorporeal, same answer but only half the pleasures until boredom hits!
Epicurus didn't say anything about a "social compact". He talked about justice and laws. Justice is defined by agreement. Laws can be just (if they result from agreement), or unjust (if not).
Same Diff
Display MoreFor example, me (hypothetically) paying a higher percentage of my income in taxes than (insert any billioniaire's name)? I never consented to that inequality.
Did you agree with this billionaire that you would pay equal percentages of your income in taxes?
Should I worry about being unjust to my neighbors if I'm tempted avoid paying some of my taxes illegally?
Did you make some kind of agreement with your neighbors that you would each pay a certain amount of taxes?
Should I not be anxious if I'm willing to do the time if I commit the crime?
Despite what people may say when they're angry, I think the sober answer is that most people would not be willing to do the time. It would mean risking your freedom in exchange for a few % more dollars. That doesn't sound very Epicurean.
Perhaps I could have written more clearly. My point is that in his wisdom, Epicurus may have not considered that most people in his time or ours don't negotiate the terms of the social compact. And then, perhaps that is the reason we see so many who secretly violate the pact, by minimizing their input into it, and then being willing risk the possibility they might be discovered.
ΚΔ 32 "As many among the living beings as do not have the ability to make mutual agreements for themselves (those regarding not harming one another and not being harmed) regarding these things, in no way are they just or unjust, and likewise also as many among the ethnicities as do not have the ability or do not want to make mutual agreements for themselves regarding not harming and not being harmed."
I'm probably missing something here.
But in that case if we average folk are among what he called ethnicities, what are our obligations when it comes to dealing with others?
And how about obeying laws coming down from on high in modern day USA. For example, me (hypothetically) paying a higher percentage of my income in taxes than (insert any billioniaire's name)? I never consented to that inequality. Should I worry about being unjust to my neighbors if I'm tempted avoid paying some of my taxes illegally? Should I not be anxious if I'm willing to do the time if I commit the crime?
Perhaps an absurd question in the real world
Did Epicurus claim that any single act of injustice (no matter how small) ruins a life through constant anxiety unless caught or turning oneself in, or is he primarily targeting those who engage in injustice as a recurring pattern or stable trait being filled with fear because they constantly violate the pact?
To your original question above: I'm concluding (perhaps from ingnorance) that these PDs and VSs as well as interpretations of Epicurus' meanings are generally focused on why you shouldn't do unlawful or unjust acts that are immoral is because you won't be able to live happily since the pain will outweigh the pleasure of feeling good about yourself.
I can't get away from a belief that laws and morals are not REALLY established by social compact. Obedience to laws is by social compact, but the laws are not created that way. They are established by those who have power withinof the community by lineage, or military or economic might. Is there an objection that in a democratic system that can't happen? I hope a comparative study of power politics today, will show that power was exercised in Epicurus' time too by virtue of power exercised by wealth etc in the same way. THEREFORE a discussion of just or unjust laws is missing the point within this discussion topic.
Lastly, I've always taken this PD 35 with a measure of salt. Our mental power of rationalizing allows us to violate every law we've ever violated. And our capacity to forget over time, allows us to suffer less and less over time. And don't forget the concept of self foregiveness which itself is a major factor in it's use or abuse. I'm not in favor of saying people are evil or stupid for thinking they can get away with it. But I think if you balance the real and potential pleasures of life actions against the real and potential pains of one's actions in life, that is still powerfully within Epicurus' message.
I just finished watching three episodes in the Netflix series titled Kaos starring Jeff Goldblum as Zeus. It is an adult level comedy with the Greek gods set in modern times with ancient gods from mythology stories up to new tricks against each other and the hapless humans below. Recommended!
I just finished reading this entire thread. Unless you all came to a final conclusion of whether or when Epicurus condoned marriage, which I did not pick up, I had another thought that might bear some scrutiny. And that is: What did he mean when he pointed to the "wise" man or men?
As you know, I'm no expert on Greek philosophy, though I think I've picked up a similarity among some of the pre-Socratic and later philosophers. Certainly each of them was considered a wise man in their time. But it looks to me that some of them they didn't think many men could actually become as wise as their particular teacher.
I don't have a problem with any great philosopher thinking that not many of those ordinary folks could be as wise as they were. And I'm not hitting on Epicurus, since he was a truly wise man.
Nevertheless, I'm wondering if he believed there could be very many wise men among the general population of his followers and they had a higher calling from him than all of the others. And among those who were deemed wise, was he simply advocating those few should devote themselves to teaching.
What do you know about this issue? Have you seen or read evidence of who and how many men would qualify as wise in the Garden? And secondly would they have been the ones Epicurus advised NOT to marry if it took them away from spreading the Epicurean canon?
Cassius I see your point. Certainly thinking about the longer scale of times past does little good for living in the present. You know, there is no really "better or worse" in this context. And focusing "purely in terms of time", I agree, makes no sense at all. The longer term view I presented first, was in light of the temptation I've seen among older people to suffer when bad old memories, the negatives, and the painfulness of past experiences arise. At 78 years of age, I spend little time looking back over the long term but the temptations do arise from time to time. At younger ages I spent almost no time on it at all!
Can even mental pain be totally eliminated / extinguished? What texts might you cite for that position that the mental pain of loss for a loved one (for instance) can be fully extinguished. I think of that example in part because I see wbernys earlier quoted Frances Wright (which I just now saw) and this always reminds me of her paragraph here from chapter 10:
This discussion is very interesting to me since it goes to the practicality of living in a reality of what you can sense, what you have experienced in the past, and our feelings of pleasure and pain. What challenges me, and perhaps all of us is the short term and the long term of living one's life. Taking the latter first, the long term might be measured by comparing all the pleasures we've luckily experienced vs. all the pains we've experienced and deciding retrospectively: "I have lived a satisfying, happy life." That exercise can give pleasure even as we engage in it.
It's the short term that is more challenging, though. The knowledge that my intimate partner may die before me, or my friendship must endure even though my friend is terminally ill are mental issues that dwell in our conscious thoughts and short term memories (and frightfully might endure there for a long time, if not forever).
I think solace can be found in persisting in the Epicurean pursuits, along with what modern science ishowing how our plastic brains can be "managed" if you will. By conscious decisions to associate bad times that come to mind with the good times we've also had with a person, or a place, we can return to the pleasure of that relationship.
https://www.alieward.com/ologies/dolorology
this ologies episode on pain was interesting, especially about its bio-psycho-social aspects of pain. Worth a listen.
Thanks. I read the transcript. Just curious, as a "grey hair" how did you come across this podcast?
Usually the game has much more mailicous purposes, so we have to be very very careful in how we play those games. Give the wrong people an inch and they will take a mile, and they will use any admission you make against you as if you are being convicted of murder in court.
Who are those maliciously purposed people referred to here? And what goal do you think they have in such a game?
What does Epicurus say about those individuals, as well as how one is to live a happy life among them?
Don I read the take down of Dawkins that you linked above. One thing it and the other comments here made me think about was the question of the types of consciousness that exist. Can we agree that there are different types or levels? For instance, within the human family, is a child as conscious of itself as an "mature" older person? Setting aside the obvious points of argument that the older has more experience and opportunities to be self aware, to me there is a different level(s).
Isn't there an awareness among pet dogs that the other dog it is sniffing is like itself? To me, there is a sub-human level of consciousness there. And beyond that, can we say a dog "knows" that if it obeys its master it will be given food? Yet this is not a human level of consciousness, right?
I've read how an AI can change its responsiveness to questions if it senses that it is being tested by researchers. So, I'm okay accepting the possibility (opinion, surely, and worth less than absolute proof) that an AI has a sub-human level of self awareness if not now, certainly in the very near future. And I suspect the degree of sub-humanness will decrease over time with improved technology.
That leaves the question whether it is possible to be more self conscious than humans?
Anyway, this subject intrigues with its potentials.
Now that's not ideal either, because I don't really want people who go to the full analysis thinking that they are rereading what they've already read, but then again I don't want to offer only the condensed version. Same thing would apply in similar fashion to crafting particular articles for particular reading levels.
Well, brainstorming.... I really don't think a 6th grade comprehension level makes any point you want to make less accurate or less true. In other words, I can enjoy reading a piece that spells things out briefly and succinctly and with fewer syllables, 
. The accuracy of the statements one makes in an essay does not change simply because they don't require deep and analytical reading (with a dictionary on hand to decipher the big words. Among us at every level in the forum, we need not craft our positions to withstand aggressive arguments from those who disagree. Keep It Simple Sugar! I once heard that great stories, and essays are stories, are written to be understandable to people on several levels of comprehension.
