Posts by DaveT

Welllll! I think facing the consequences of death is so personal, I'm good doing it alone. Of course when facing imminent or approaching death, I'd imagine having support during the process would be helpful if I'm fortunate to have close loved ones around.

Related to this thread, I listened to an interview of David J. Linden a Johns Hopkins neuroscientist on Big Think. He was facing his own cancer death and realized he had difficulty in accepting a world without him in it. After 40 years of his career studying the brain, it is built to constantly predict what happens next; minute by minute, hour by hour and so on. For instance, our brain constantly tries to predict what will happen in the next seconds as I walk along this sidewalk, as I approach a cross street, as I approach the restaurant to meet a friend for lunch etc. Therefore since biologically the brain is constantly trying to predict what will happen next (for my continued existence), it has a problem seeing the world after death. He speculates that this is why an afterlife of some type is an element of almost every religious beliefs system.

Quote from LAMAR__44

I think it makes sense to evaluate before starting a friendship or romantic relationship whether there will be net pleasure or pain, but doing this inside of relationships seems to make them feel shallow and transactional, at least for me.

For me, this process does not feel shallow or transactional in a negative sense. First as to the transactional, the positive view is apparent in the old saying: you have to be a friend to have a friend. Is it transactional? In my view, yes it is transactional, but so is every interaction with others.

As for shallowness: Some would call romantic relationships a subset of friendships, others--not. I find the study of Epicurus can sometimes divert the student from the realities of intimate relationships. It is not fully explored to my understanding in the writings of Epicurus and his followers. I can only speak to heterosexual romantic relationships. The two women I've lived with over a period of more than 50 years were selected by my (or vice versa! ) through complex mental and physical motivations that are basically undecipherable by me. However, the anticipation of physical and mental pleasure in every way certainly was justly involved. I find nothing wrong with it, indeed I think it is important to use the calculus of pleasure/pain.

Perhaps I've dug too deep into your question, but even for anticipating other friends, no less than long term partners, the process is a gradual one that only comes with engagement over time. Who has not tried to make a friendship and then over time moved away from it for lack of some element of sympatico, as it were? Life is trial and error, and that, I suggest is in the spirit of Epicurus.

Quote from Cassius

I do not believe Epicurus would view someone who would "fail to steal a loaf of bread for a starving child" as simply choosing another path in life. Epicurus would find that conduct outrageous and deserving of strong verbal condemnation if not worse. Ideas have consequences and this is the kind of result of Kantian ideology that deserves the forcefulness of a Nietzsche to condemn in adequate terms.

Why must extreme examples be used to dispute a point in discussion. Extremes are not the norm for belief in my opinion. This is an example of the type of argumentation that can be found in Lucretius that diminishes its power. Giving five examples of extremes is not helpful to deep consideration of an issue under discussion. Does anyone really think a man like Kant would actually frown on someone's act of stealing bread to feed a starving child? That example seems absurd also for the fact it is twisting fiction for philosophical argument. By the way, it was a fictional story In Les Misérables, Jean Valjean was unjustly convicted for stealing bread to feed starving children.

Quote from Cassius

I doubt any friendly meetings would last much longer than necessary to explore any ambiguities that one felt that they might have about some detail of the other.

Speaking as an Epicurean friend, I think you missed my point. I was not talking about those he was struggling against for contemporary dominance. I was referring to the progress of philosophy depending on the prior generations of great thinkers. And frankly, I wasn't talking about polemical writings of attack and counter attack that they may have engaged in. I was talking about great men who had to have respected the effort each put into thinking about their good fortune to be alive and grasping for truth in the best way they knew how.

I have seen and been with politicians who behind closed doors look for common ground no matter their public disagreements. I am not willing to believe if those men, though they would never have met across the centuries, men like Epicurus, Kant and later great men would have acted any other way in private. And I think that is a goal among friends discussing comparative philosophers as Martin did, and as I explained earlier In this post.

Quote from Cassius

I perceive I personally tend to want to confront other views more than I think that some others wish to do. And it's true that quarreling quickly gets tiresome, especially when it's readily available at Reddit. So that's why we have different sections and levels and try to meet as many needs as possible.

I think you missed my point here. I in no way was advocating "quareling quickly" which you described as "tiresome". On the contrary, I was anticipating that this forum's interactions could be designed to avoid loosely governed combat Reddit discussions may certainly contain threads where even juvenile and unsupported opinions can range far afield on many hotly contested issues. There is a lot of space between both ends of this spectrum.

I don't mind if the forum remains the same or if it adds to itself. I think I made myself clear on my reasons in support.

Sometimes this forum seems to take on the entire world as if in a black and white challenge to its philosophy. And yet, it is quite apparent that the goal of the forum is to host reasoned and frank discourse without excessive passion or extremism of any sort.

Quote from Cassius

And one of the operating presumptions of this forum is that we are dealing with "normal people" who want "normal lives lived happily" and we're not catering to those who live for the exhilaration that they apparently get from reveling in uncertainty about every question in life.

I find that surprising in my limited knowledge of forum participants. You of course must have the data to support your comment. Also, I'm at a loss over your statement, "we're not catering to those who live for the exhilaration that they apparently get from reveling in uncertainty about every question in life." Who are you referring to here? "Revelling in uncertainty" seems a bit strong for any group, no?

For conversation's sake: What philosopher actually proves anything? We've probably dealt with that issue often enough, but my devilish sense of humor drove me to ask it again.

But seriously, imagine for a moment, Epicurus and Kant, and, I don't know, Camus at a conference somewhere, together in a reserved room at the end of the day, sipping ouzo, scnapps, and napoleon brandy, and discussing their lives "back in the day". Each of them having enjoyed notoriety after being in the major leagues of existential thinking, and having read the work of the others, they talk amiably. Would they not have common respect for each other and be able to good naturedly but seriously, poke each other in the ribs verbally on this point or that? And then afterwards they all retired to their bedrooms resolving to keep their own counsel on differences among them?

Every comparison of existential concepts need not be direct testimony, cross examination, re-direct and re-cross into infinity until tempers flare.

If you are studying philosophy (as we do) at any level, you are already among the elite, and capable of thinking about competing existential concepts. I don't think anyone needs to fear that comparative points on an Epicurean forum will confuse novice students. I suspect all forum members are already leaning into Epicurus and high level discussions.

As I said previously, I'd welcome and certainly would learn from such discussions if any two or more care to engage in it.

I would like to see one aspect of this discussion of Epicurean vs Kantian perspectives in this or another thread on the forum.

I know comparatively little about Epicurus and less about Kant. However, I sense that the current distinctions between the schools being discussed carry an unspoken acknowledgment. Newer philosophies have been influenced to the good by earlier deep thinking. As much as E. differed from Socrates, he had to have been influenced to some degree by him.

If students of either school are inclined to do so, I'd enjoy reading relevant comparisons between E and Kant (and other more modern philosophers) that shows how they are similarly focused. Can it be done without avoiding the differences yet at the same time avoiding disputation?

Cassius  Don and all: The irony of choosing the best way to live an Epicurean life is that he taught that social activism was less valuable or necessary to happiness than living his basic principles. Yet, he and his disciples tried to spread his influence via the Garden(s) and writing "books" and letters. Their efforts were essentially dependent on some form of marketing and promotion, don't be fooled about that. Spreading the word takes work, no matter the era.

I hope I have made my feelings clear about better ways to spread Epicurean philosophical concepts, as well as my upbeat belief in the slow but obvious progress of Western culture toward Epicurean/secular directions.

Anyone can keep track of how often Epicurus is mentioned on the Internet by signing up for Google Alerts by your email address (on any topic you wish) <http://www.google.com/alerts>. I have listed "Epicurus" on my alerts list and get frequent emailed links to articles in the popular press about Epicurus. True, as Don pointed out , the other schools of philosophy and religion probably get tons more press, but progress is progress, however small.

Even if popular press articles may miss important aspects, and I am not saying they always do miss something or other, I'm still encouraged by the mere mention of the philosophy in a positive light.

Each of us must choose his way of making known his choice of lifestyle. But we must keep in mind when choosing how to do so in a public way, to not give up the "good" in search of the "perfect."

TauPhi  Don  Cassius and fellow forum members: Perhaps some reactions to the editorial use of AI are based on mis-perceptions. If you already know this, you quite understand my comment here.

As an award-winning fiction author, I hired a highly accomplished New York publishing industry editor to get my work to the best of my ability. He did not substantively change my story, nor add to the intense research I did on historical events, but he helped me structure the chapters and some paragraphs, and occasionally made some of my sentences sing. BUT in every specific case, he made clear my decision on accepting or rejecting his advice was final.

I can guarantee that everything we read in the best journals and magazines in popular media and in academia, is reviewed by an official or unofficial team and it is modified to present the best product possible. This is no different from using an AI in its present simple form.

I am not aware of instances in either commercial or academic publishing where the author(s) notate their work to identify editorial help. (Exceptions can be seen in long-form books where the author usually thanks at least some of their editorial team.)

As to what AI actually does when it is asked: Current publicly available AI only recognizes patterns in its database that may match and answer the question asked of it. It doesn’t think about other questions, if it can be said to think at all. It only recognizes possible answers and spits out the best answer responsive to the specific request. If one asks the AI for editorial assistance on structure, syntax, or grammar, that is all it will provide.

I suggest the question is no different now with the use of AI than it is for human editorial assistance.

First off, this was such a well written piece in its structure, clarity and logic. I'm jealous of the style you have exhibited in constructing this as well as the recent review of Massimo Pigliuci's essay. This is really good writing. My only critical comment is that I think this is publication material beyond this forum and your Substack, and therefore, you might want to solicit reviews from fellow experts to remove any issues that it might (I don't know of any) distract from the main point.

Quote from Cassius

I see mostly regression from 2000 years ago, and in order to deal with that regression we need to focus on where things went wrong and how applying core Epicurean attitudes could redress those problems.

I understand your point of view. On the other hand I see progress away from the monarchical God and church appointed governments of the last 250 years. No longer do we accept conquest in the name of god's command to subjugate the earth.

I think there is something to be said about a focus on the secular adaptation of Epicurean principles that have made their way into common society, into academia and medicine as well as government policies even though those principles are not often recognized as Epicurean.

One might call this raw hedonic calculus, if I follow you, but it is still moving away from mythology in practice accross Europe and North America. Most PEW polling shows the decline of popular participation in religious organizations. It seems to me this is to the good, even if people haven't fully broken with their all-to-human fear of displeasing an unprovable divinity, believing in Astrology, having their palms read and fearing ghosts.

On your point of searching for a way to deal with newer people, I'm guessing you mean newer to the Forum. I've heard that the way to engage with others is to ask those people, who they are in real life, why they joined, what their goals are at the Forum, and perhaps when they might have the time to participate. I think those questions can be asked tactfully, not just to new people, but perhaps they might become a part of an annual discussion among the membership.

Quote from Cassius

I suspect that you are neither and that's why you think it's ok to go right to ethics

Cassius, your suspicion is quite incorrect as well as your conclusion. I do think my posts relating to Sedley's interpretations, indeed Lucretius' interpretations and arguments of Epicurus' beliefs need to be balanced and kept in context much better.

For instance, to say: "That's why this discussion is important. Epicurus is discussing the limits and boundaries of properties of atoms and the qualities that emerge from combinations of atoms. All of this directly refutes the idea that human life is either chaotic or determined supernaturally." (Underlining added)

I don't agree that it directly refutes either the chaotic nature or the supernaturally determined nature of human life. It is an argument against supernaturalism and chaos, but it is just that, a reasonable argument, rather than a refutation.

Please see my further comment below.

Quote from Cassius

These are the issues we are really talking about and that Epicurus is addressing. Epicurus could care less whether we call fundamental particles atoms or protons or neurons or quarks or anything else, and I think if he were here today those who focus on that perspective are in fact lost and will never see the bigger picture until they back up and decide philosophically what "reality" really means.

Cassius, in the spirit of Epicurean frankness, I hope you are not suggesting that perhaps I am lost on account of my opinion. Indeed, I think I see the bigger picture, even if it differs from someone else’s field of study and opinion. Perhaps there is a failure to communicate here. And I am willing to consider that part of the problem is my failure to write more clearly.

But to your quote: It is quite clear to me, as you have responded more than once, that Epicurus’ physics is a foundation for leading people away from mythology and divine Providence and using our human nature to achieve happiness. Anyone who thinks physics or ancient metaphysics are separate and apart from philosophy would be mistaken. I think we agree there.

I think it would be a better course to maximize Epicurus’ reasons for his physics and minimize the study of the details for the average student, like me.

To repeat my earlier comment in this thread, I find the deep study of his physics more historically valuable than practically useful to a philosophically based lifestyle. And here is the crux of my comments; at the same time, our exposure to and study of modern science are essential to the individual practice of Epicurus’ overall philosophy.

Quote from Cassius

Sedley's argument is that Epicurus was not a strict reductionist: he did not say that your feelings of pleasure and pain, your lived experience, your psychological states are "mere illusions" that dissolve into atomic physics if you look closely enough. The qualities of compound things — including the pleasure and pain we feel — are real, not eliminable, and must be understood at their own level. That is philosophically powerful ammunition against the modern dismissal of Epicurean ethics as "merely subjective" or "just brain chemistry."

Please explain how: "That is philosophically powerful ammunition against the modern dismissal ....as 'merely subjective'". Doesn't each person experience those things based on their own subjective physical and mental state?

Also, please explain how "just brain chemistry" varies from the Epicurus' methods and conclusions exploring those human experiences. I have trouble seeing it as a dismissal of Epicurus. The question of chemistry affecting free will to some degree Is being examined and tested. Therefore, the possibilities of chemistry partly explaining free will seems consistent with Eplicurus' methodology of reductionistic and antireductionistic logic.

Sorry I missed the discussion on this topic since my observation may already have been raised and answered.

Why should interpretations of Epicurus' thinking on atoms, that is, whether he was either or both a reductionist and/or an anti reductionist, be relevant to modern practice of Epicurean lifestyle? Compared to modern discoveries, albeit they stand on Epicurus' intuitions about atoms, his explanations of atoms and void are rather simplistic.

I don't question that this topic is a worthy one among historians of Epicurus' teachings. However, the study of reality arising from perceived nature, and logically intuited unseen nature, as Epicurus demanded, seems to point us beyond the history if we want to live a happy life grounded in reality and not mythology.

For me, the advances in physics over the last 100 years have led to modern scientific discoveries that further advance what Epicurus encouraged.

Cassius I respect your inclinations and wouldn't try to change your thoughts on widening the issue of a Stoic vs Epicurean duty to engage. As you confirmed, I think there is little likelihood to gain agreement between debaters, and frankly why should there be? And that is why I'm not suggesting personality driven debate to the public at large. That becomes two men of a certain age nit picking each other's belief's. My thinking was that a scholarly debate read in an academic journal, might raise the misstated issues by Pigliucci to professionals in the field. Any one of those who may better understand Epicurus though your forceful review of Pigliucci becomes a force multiplier so to speak toward your goal of clearing up misconceptions of Epicurean foundations.

Once again, great job!

Cassius Complements on your thorough refutation of Pigliucci's article on the duty to engage among Stoics. I wish you and he could engage in a scholarly journal on issues he asserted and your response. Any ideas on how to initiate something like that?

Quote from Cassius

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

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

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

Perhaps you might also have discussed that in Civil Law cases where “probably” is acceptable.

In criminal cases, people go to prison. Generally, in civil cases which are far more common, you don't go to prison.

And I am suggesting this clarification because, when we are discussing standards of proof in response to the beginning question of this thread. But sometimes beyond reasonable doubt, like in criminal cases, or probably (more likely than not) like in civil cases, need a lot more clarification when applied to issues we have in this thread.

Proof, whether to support philosophical, scientific, or legal subjects, whether directly or circumstantially arrived at, by consensus or individual logic, must be clearly defined as a basis for discussion. . And not just defined, but also limited in application. Otherwise, when we discuss the ancient debates of Hellenistic philosophers, we can get distracted from the original topic under study in the thread.

I see evidence that Epicurean teachings are far more widespread than many think it to be. Epicurus' name is not attached to the actions and beliefs of people, especially in western, educated, Industrialized, rich, democracies (WEIRD). Just listen to any marketing of medical providers and pharmaceuticals, and you hear reduction of pain and suffering as a goal that can be achieved. The same for psychiatric and counseling practices. There's no grin and bear it there. Listen to mindful presentations and note they teach recognizing the good in yourself and others. There's no demand to achieve certain virtues. Heck, I'll bet money that even preachers forced to preach to dwindling numbers of congregations emphasize compassion and understanding rather than be good and guarantee heaven or face hell. I think the world will give up more classical stoicism and absolutism in practice. By the way, they don't know the basis of those in the ancient Greeks. I see Epicurean beliefs as unstoppable. Without the cudgel of fear of damnation or afterlife, Epicurean thought can't compete head to head with major religions. It carries no threat of irredeemable error for denial of the faith. For that reason, it will continue to grow, slowly, beyond our lifetimes and even then, it can only be expected to be a large influence rather than a monolithic belief system.

Quote from Cassius

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.

I get it, your view. I lean more to the side that says I don't believe any of those items are true because I have never seen evidence that they are true. Therefore, since I believe them all to be false, I'm not concerned about the amount of evidence I have to dig up to prove what Epicurus taught is true. If those who believe 1 to 3 above want to believe it, no harm is done to me. Now when it comes to organized religions that preach those items, I see the harm they have done with the power of the fear of disobedience.

Quote from Cassius

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.

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.

One last point that I think I have to make here. Science and the Scientific Method are distinctly different concepts in common usage and practical applications. Perhaps they are conflated as a result of poor educational systems or force of habit. Conflating the two invites confusion, in my opinion. Throughout the ages Science has eventually and always been shown to be wrong on any topic once better tested ideas came along. The Scientific Method invites and expects that we, as average people and experts in particular, examine any assertion to the best of our ability. This is how we determine whether something is true or false. And always our estimation is based on the best evidence available at the time.

You know, to say, " Consensus is not a logical goal, especially in ethics, and often is later decided to be wrong." is a hard one for me to agree on. Perhaps consensus is not a logical goal in ethics because how to live life well on a daily basis is not individually testable among diverse people. However, consensus on Epicurean general guidelines is testable, and I suggest we arrive at our belief in it by consensus through discussion among friends and comparative study.