Submitted by philosophybreak t3_117z7oh in philosophy
Ahead of the... swerve?
The swervature of spacetime.
General wigglitivity.
Jiggle theory
That’s a solid album name right there
More likely a bar in Amsterdam but I wouldn't completely pass the opportunity to listen to the album
Epicurus was ahead of the curve in so many ways. The stoics get all the praise, but epicurus really laid the groundwork for a lot of what the stoics proclaimed.
He also got rid of 'fate' which to me always seemed to be another cop out and appeal to a higher power rather than people engaging with the extent of their autonomy.
"it is my fate"/"it's god's will", some bullshit lol
Yes, Epicurus was unusual in his era for putting forth a mechanistic, deterministic theory of the universe, governed by natural laws, not functioning pursuant to teleological "final causes" in the Aristotelian sense. The Aristotelian desire to describe the universe in terms of purposes and telos would persist in Europe until the early modern period.
[deleted]
I don't think fate is the same as determinism. Doesn't fate imply some divine plan that has been set for you?
"the development of events beyond a person's control, regarded as determined by a supernatural power."
Going by Google I'd have to agree with you. However, supernatural power is by definition unfalsifiable. We have no idea and we can never know.
It doesn't really matter though, as long as you don't claim to know the future.
Edit: "atoms may deviate from their expected course, thus permitting humans to possess free will" this is a logical leap into the supernatural. The idea that we somehow have the ability to influence matter from outside it's causal structure.
Possible through QM with GR no?
Uh I guess I have no idea
How? Neither describes anything but deterministic or probabilistic physics.
But if QM is interfered with external to the universal set its non-deterministic [big if]
How would that happen?
Within plank definition
Sorry, you lost me.
Take a snoop at this. https://youtu.be/_Y8HgmOoLCM
This doesn’t say anything about free will. Are you trying to surmise that there are free-will-endowing agents at scales smaller than we can currently examine?
Not necessarily, just that that's the interface at which they would act iif that were the case. But by definition its not what we can currently examine - it's what our model of physics defines elementary by the energy mass defintion.
I wouldn’t think so. QM is probabilistic but things don’t randomly swerve like in Epicurean physics.
Right but the probability is based on the observer structure within the universal set, which could mean 'observation' within the probably include variances outside the universal set by some nonenergy defined process
No
Tangent but I was thinking about it last night lol
The thing that interests me right now is the isolation of the consciousness from outside causes. You could argue that there is no barrier such that outside stimuli influence the brain and the chemicals it creates and thus how we choose. But it's this idea of consideration, of thinking. A pause to consider pathways. We can be influenced but does this ever determine the outcome? Does a time of deliberation within the mind ever create a break in causality, and thus free will? Or is deliberation equally something with a direct cause?
Like have you ever thought of something and been set on a certain understanding, thought about it, and a new understanding upends your perspective? Was that determined to happen? What was the influence upon this sudden intuition? Could it be that this change is not from a causal chain but emergent from the mind?
What's been on my mind is energy. We can imagine possibility. How does the mind have this creativity if it is set in stone? Is the ability to imagine myself in a lego castle determined? Is it possible to imagine something we have not perceived? If a mind creates an alien species like in Peter Watts Blindsight, did he achieve this from causes influencing him or was it the potential of his brain to create new ideas? Even if his creature is made of things he has seen, how can this lead to him combining patterns, thoughts, and ideas into something that is not real? Is there a break from one thing to another such that free will exists and that we choose our path through consideration of possibilities that do not yet exist but are imagined?
Random idea: in the show Dark (all the spoilers) >!the loop is destroyed through a loophole where time is completely stopped, and so cause and effect is effectively stopped. A break. Does time exist within the mind, and therefore does cause and effect exist there?!<
I believe most of what goes on is unconscious, so to claim you know yourself completely is like knowing the future. You can make predictions and be good at it but only the future can tell you what it holds. Only after death can your entire story be told.
The mind is an emergent property of brain stuff. It's like a game that emerges from a rule set. Can the game break the rules? Even when one of the rules is to follow the causal chain? I don't think the chain can be broken. It's my assumption.
I think the only reason anyone would assume the chain can be broken is a feeling. The feeling of agency, the feeling of self. Things that we absolutely unconsciously construct in our minds to be able to make decisions. It's decision making machinery.
Imo. I'll always assume that the causal chain cannot be broken. I guess until I don't
Why not indeterminism?
Wow, didn't realized he guessed at quantum uncertainty. That does not affect human brains as far as we know (too big & hot for quantum behaviors), but still, he is prescient.
No, he did not. Reading quantum theories into the unusable non-scientific ideas of Greeks gets it backward. It looks familiar because the Europeans who spearheaded the scientific revolution came from a tradition whose education was so steeped in Greek philosophy that they borrowed the language for their original and unrelated ideas. looking around and saying big things tend to be made up of smaller component parts that have some sort of behavior is the extent of their insight.
>big things tend to be made up of...extent of their insight
Specifically, "swerve" being nondeterministic looks a little like quantum superposition/wave function collapse. That's the extent of my comment, and I do think it's notable.
No, obviously, he didn't observe quantum mechanics. Yes, I know early particle philosophy was guess work. I fully stand by my original comment.
I guess I see his use of atomic swerve as a generalization being made to justify his desired outcome, which is a universe, where humans have free will. So, I wouldn't see it as an insight based on intuition about the nature of the universe that ultimately proves to be precient. It looks to me like he starts from the assumption that humans have free will, and if he wants that to be true, it's gonna be a problem for humans to be made up of a bunch of billiard balls knocking around in a completely determined way. So his solution is just to say, but what if they don't do that. If the insight is pointing out, a discontinuity between deterministic cause and effect and free will, fair enough. Anything beyond that feels a stretch because if you don't want a deterministic universe without free will, and you don't want to ditch atoms entirely, you are only gonna be left with atoms that are not deterministic. So, the paradox kinda creates a problem for determinism that is partially explained by quantum mechanics (similar to plank lengths with xemos paradox). If that's the interesting part, fair enough.
Swerve was just the philosophers’ way of arguing for free will against deterministic ideas right?
I don’t see how random deviation of atoms would cause free will. It would break determinism, but only so to cause random behavior. Not any that is freely willed. I genuinely don’t understand why people are always trying to fit free will into their theories or philosophies, like it’s some innate thing that is self evident. I have seen videos where otherwise very intelligent people explain some mind blowing physics concept and then they’re like “well, that would be the case, but we know it’s wrong because it leaves out free will.” I thought it was just an axiom for the theist, but why then do scientifically inclined individuals still hold out hope for the discovery of free will? I just don’t understand it, and it seems frustrating.
I've started to believe that free will is simply a bad concept. It doesn't even make any sense. Its not that we have or don't have free will, but that it simply is a made up idea that doesn't actually refer to anything real.
The problem is that the self is itself an illusion, and free will is trying to determine if the the main cause of behavior is from within the self or not. Therefor any claim of free will - or no free will - will be completely arbitrary.
> The problem is that the self is itself an illusion,
As someone who firmly believes in the same notion, it is a pretty wild thing to just assert it as a known fact. Thousands of years have passed debating this very concept, and the roots of consciousness still evade us to this day.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m on the “self is an illusion” team, and being born in the land of the Buddha, we’ve had some interesting variations of this notion. But it isn’t established knowledge. If it were the question of “will” would dissolve away entirely.
>The problem is that the self is itself an illusion
I've found these claims largely come down to how the self is initially conceptualised, someone might say the self is some "inner entity" within experience, upon which someone else may say no it's not, therefore it's declared illusory (similar to how Harris argues for the illusory self). Someone else may simply define self as not a "thing" one has but a "thing" one is, i.e talk of "self" is just talk of the human being I am, not talk of some "self" I own/have. It can largely just come down to linguistics & how we define "self" etc, it's an extremely jumbled topic & can also be conflated with maintenance of personal identity, which is largely a different philosophical discussion. Overall though, I don't see that there is any genuine "problem" of the self, rather just countless linguistic confusions & various moves people make. See here -
Yeah, I agree with this take. The self is just a mental conception that is used by the human animal to set a boundary between what he is directly responsible for and what is the outside world. While the self is a real, definite thing that all humans construct, I think that the illusion comes from the fact that you are not actually separate from your environment, yet it is optimal to operate as if that is the case for survival.
>I think that the illusion comes from the fact that you are not actually separate from your environment
It's not clear to me why that should be an illusion, I don't see why individuation can't exist via certain boundary conditions, for example I can't access your mind, you can't access my mind, we're located in different spatial coordinates etc. Unless there's some ultimate "one" solipsistic mind which we are all fragments of, I don't see anything much illusory regarding individuation.
I personally believe in extended mind theory. I would consider your distance to me the only real thing that prevents your mind from not being accessible to me. But the people around me they go have their own life experience, and then I probe them for their perspective when I require it. Sure I don’t have access to their entire mind, just like I don’t have access to the entire internet (for example, it would be impossible for me to watch every YouTube video) yet I can still answer virtually any question I have through researching via this extended mind. Your personal thoughts like what constitute your identity or your feelings towards a girl aren’t really useful to me, so it’s not so bad if they get filtered before reaching the societal mind. But the people around me I would certainly consider their minds, at least what they are willing to communicate to me, as an accessible part of my own mind. But that muddies the boundaries for my self concept. But my self concept still remains, whether it’s boundaries are muddied or not, I still will use terms like me and I, and that is just a concrete fact that this mental system exists. The illusion is that these boundaries must be set where we have traditionally set them. I am of the opinion I have responsibility to maintain not only my own life, but the life of the people I care about. If my best friend were to die, it would genuinely feel like a part of my own self died; like I lost a piece of my own mind. When I dropped my phone in a lake while kayaking, I lost a part of my mind, many ideas I chose to store on it rather than in my brain or on the internet, and now they’re gone.
Also to add, one does not get to choose what their own preferences are, so there cannot be free will. Our preferences come from genetics and knowledge passed down to us from generation to generation /culture. No where is there an individual deciding all these things.
>I don’t see how random deviation of atoms would cause free will. It would break determinism, but only so to cause random behavior.
It's easy to take random noise and turn it into meaningful results. Look at Perlin noise generators or how video games use seeds.
I can happily believe that true random 'swerve' of simple elements can be exploited by evolutionary processes to lead to a sort of 'weighted decision maker'. Couple that to consciousness and you've got free will.
How are we to judge those deviations to be free of anything? Deviations from what we expect, but suggesting that is the same as deviating from causality suggests also that we have a perfect grasp on all things down to the most basic and miniscule of scales, and that we understand 100% all things and their infinitely interconnected causal relations. I do not believe we are that all-knowing.
>How are we to judge those deviations to be free of anything?
We can't.
Remember, I'm responding to the 'what if' of 'what if there was truely random swerve'. If there was true random swerve, then I could see how evolutionary processes could exploit that. I'm not say we can determine whether or not atoms have truely random swerve.
You seem to redefine free will here. Even a ‘weighted calculation’ wouldn’t amount to free will. That’s just another bias our brains would use when making calculations. Free will would require that against all odds, you still possess the ability of choosing your future out of multiple possible futures. That the responsibility of the situation you’re in lies mostly on yourself. That at any point in your life, you could have made a decision differently via unbound will. If you replayed a choice in your life like chocolate vs white milk at lunch, say you chose chocolate, determinism would say that you could replay infinite times and you would choose chocolate every time. With your suggestion of the weighted calculations based one random quantum probability, if replayed, and the quantum probability was like 70% odds chocolate, 25% odds white, 3% odds strawberry, and 2% you don’t take a milk, then when replayed an infinite amount of times over, your behavior would match that spread. Where is the free will in that? It happened according to a mathematical function that existed well before and after your existence. Just laws of a universe much bigger than the individual self.
True randomness is just as inexplicable as free will. What determines the outcome? A mysterious thing called the will or nothing at all? An undetermined yet somehow concrete outcome sounds pretty paradoxical.
The point is if an outside observer cannot predict the outcome, it's impossible to say anything further about it, either declaring it random or an act of will.
Lol you’re arguing that quantum uncertainty “could be random, could be god idk”
Well, yeah
Maybe in some sort of obligatory defense of the status-quo (conscious or subconscious); ultimately even science is limited by institutional structures, presumably. Kind of lays to rest the idea that anyone and everyone can pull themselves out of any given societal/socioeconomic condition with enough personal responsibility.
Though I’ve been reading a lot of Marx lately, so I might be a tad influenced/biased with this take.
[deleted]
That's interesting! Does the sum of the atomic swerves determine the will - which doesn't sound free to me - or does the will determine the sum of the atomic swerves?
This has nothing to do with epicureanism, but I always thought micro-phenomena determine macro-phenomena - that seems more obvious to me - but you can also think about the possibility of macro-phenomena determining micro-phenomena.
For example in video games, sometimes when a character walks over rough terrain or stairs, the legs are positioned such that the body in a specified position is supported by them. Keyword "inverse kinematics" How Link's Climbing Animation Works in Breath of the Wild (10:48)
Maybe it's impossible to determine if the real world works "process-oriented" bottom-up or "goal-oriented" top-down. It might be impossible to determine empirically. When you assume a bottom-up physics, you will find a bottom-up physical laws (~ forward kinematics). In games, the apparent laws of physics are sometimes broken when no satisfying reason for a desired goal state can be found. That's when a character hovers in the air, "because" their feet aren't long enough to reach the ground or when a character is too far away from the place he is supposed to be, he is yanked there by invisible rubber bands.
'your' world (that is, your experienced reality) probably does both. There is always a bottom-up process orientation happening to resist the ground and gravity and that determines which hemisphere of your brain is getting more pressure-generated sensation and therefore more activity depending on the leg you're standing on. That orientation then also has to form the basis of a goal-oriented hand-to-ground stability that works in more of a top-down manner. For the large majority of humans that usually happens on the right side/left hemisphere
Do we control this atomic swerve or is it down to some other factor out of our control?
Stoicism + Epicureanism tends to remedy most what ails me
Yeah both those and then a healthy amount of optimistic nihilism have served me well and I’m a pretty content and happy person now at 30 when compared to when I was in my late teens and early 20s. I learned about Epicureanism around then and have been developing my personal beliefs and philosophy somewhat around it and the other beliefs mentioned. It’s been good to me.
This combination is where it's at.
OMG, this is so helpful to me right now. At age 56 have been finally accurately diagnosed as being bipolar type 1. Stoicism helps us be more resilient to tough through things. I think corporate America Love this And is promoting it. And I, especially as a male, was all about continuing to feed into hard work will get me rewards thing. Most Americans who realizing balance is the key. But epicurianism is quite un -American capitalist. I have to have calm in peace in my life so it's not too sitting off my mania and range or put me into suicidal ideation depression. I will definitely be studying this more.
Be well brother
[deleted]
You do you bro
Yes, that is one way of not having kids.
Ah, but procreating is inherently immoral. I wanted to discuss one of my favourite arguments in favour of antinatalism, but the person defending natalism deleted their comments shortly before I had a chance to respond. Guess I’ll just leave my reply here.
For starters: you cannot possibly prevent suffering in anyone’s life, really. You can only attempt at reducing it. No matter how much love, affection and protection you provide for your child in an attempt to ensure they live their best life, there will be always a possibility of them getting kidnapped, raped, murdered, otherwise violently harmed, or inevitably dying of either chronic illness or senescence if they somehow avoid all of the above. Therefore, you are to blame for imposing the capacity to suffer on your child (that would otherwise not exist and accordingly not suffer).
Now, bringing someone into existence generates both good and bad experiences, suffering and pleasure, whereas not doing so generates neither suffering nor pleasure. We both agree that the absence of suffering is good. The happiness they experience throughout life is also good; however, a lack thereof is only a negative factor for the already existing, because only they can have the negative experience of deprivation. Therefore, a lack of pleasure for the unborn child is not bad in a moral sense.
To simplify and, hopefully, systematise this for the experiencing individual:
And an additional dichotomy that necessarily follows from these conclusions, if I may:
We can clearly see that even with the grossly unrealistic assumption that the amount of happiness in one’s life quantitatively outweighs the amount of suffering, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation.
Your argument rests on four premises, which are not universally agreed upon as stipulation or truth. In your worldview, and perhaps the worldview of most people (although neither are relevant without being universal), the premises you numbered 1-4 may be accepted as truth.
That does not mean everyone accepts those premises, and believes suffering to be bad or pleasure to be good. Hedonism, epicureanism, and other pleasure-seeking and suffering-avoiding ideologies are exalted by some and condemned by others. With words as nebulous as “good” and “bad” I’m not sure how you can definitively claim “pleasure to be good” and “suffering to be bad,” let alone expect everyone to subscribe to those notions.
Your other two premises also suffer from the vagueness of words such as “good” and “bad,” but even without those deficiencies your argument holds no water. Assuming everyone believes your premises numbered 1-4, or that said premises are somehow a universal truth regardless of the beliefs or individuals is not substantiated by any evidence. Your feelings that “suffering is bad, pleasure is good” may be relevant to your beliefs, but are far from objective truth.
Note: this is not a defense of having children or choosing not to. I think there are legitimate arguments for both sides; I do not think this is an example.
Could you please elaborate on how the argument “holds no water” other than stating that there are some who might disagree with it? I would appreciate it if you addressed the premises it’s build upon rather than broadly rejecting them.
Regarding vagueness of the words “good” and “bad”, you might have a point here, but I’d rather we got to the underlying virtue ethics after addressing more general problems one might have with those premises. As for the argument itself, however, I think even an approach as simplistic as negative utilitarianism (which I myself am not overly fond of, but I digress) would suffice to demonstrate the validity of my dichotomy in relation to the morality of having children.
[deleted]
This brought some more tranquility... I think you've got something there. Thanks for the clarity.
[deleted]
>3. The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
>
>4. The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
For an Epicurean, these statements would be false. Pleasure and pain are experiences of living beings, not abstract Platonic Ideas. The absence of pain is always enjoyed by someone, and the absence of pleasure is always a deprivation on someone.
>2. There is a moral obligation not to produce a child if it can be foreseen that it will be unhappy.
This statement is falsified, for an Epicurean, because such foresight is impossible... especially for a human.
>We can clearly see that even with the grossly unrealistic assumption that the amount of happiness in one’s life quantitatively outweighs the amount of suffering, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation.
Epicurus didn't think that procreation was bad because we can't guarantee that the offspring will be happy... but because the raising of children is a painful burden on the parent.
Antinatalism gang!
Shit, too late for that.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[removed]
[deleted]
[removed]
[removed]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[removed]
[deleted]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[removed]
[deleted]
>constantly learning more about myself and the world by experiencing more of it.
Not having kids lets me do this, just in a different way. It doesn't make me "less", just different from you.
Agreed. As a parent having children is monumental, and it’s sincerely not for everyone. I respect anyone’s decision to not head down this path. It’s a tough one, but filled with love. That being said, Reddit to me feels distinctly extra antinatalism. Not in this thread specifically, but the platform at large. And I feel as though more people should share how enriching an experience it can be. Because it sincerely can be the greatest thing you have ever done.
TLDR; both walks of life are valid and we should support both parents and individuals.
I think my advice is if you genuinely want children, do your damnedest not to inflict intergenerational trauma upon them. I know VERY few who manage it.
My advice would rather be that if you want children and think you can manage parenting incredibly well, you should adopt a child instead of procreating. That way you actually reduce suffering instead of creating it in the first place (and forcing the burden of human consciousness upon the individual, little things like that).
While you, and antinatalism, argue that bringing a child into the world is inherently harmful and should be avoided for unpredictable risks, there are good reasons to believe that some people are more suited to parenthood than others. For instance, if a person is biologically healthy and intelligent, they may be more likely to provide a nurturing environment for their child and raise them to be healthy and successful adults.
Yes they should and could adopt, but they should also be inclined to have at least one kid. If two people have only one child and do not have any additional children, they are technically contributing to a decrease in population growth. While this may seem counterintuitive at first, it is important to understand that population growth is not just about the total number of people in the world, but also about the rate of change in that number. When 2 people have only 1 child, they are replacing themselves in the population. However, they are not contributing to any additional population growth beyond replacement level.
Also, from an evolutionary perspective, reproduction is a fundamental biological drive that has helped ensure the survival of our species for millennia. While it is true that overpopulation and other social and environmental factors can make it more difficult to raise a child in some circumstances, that does not mean that procreation is always wrong. In fact, it may be argued that individuals who are best equipped to raise children should have them, in order to ensure the continued success and well-being of our species.
While it is true that having a child involves a certain degree of risk and uncertainty, this is true of all human endeavors. Life is inherently unpredictable, and there are no guarantees that any action we take will lead to a positive outcome. However, by living our lives with intention and purpose, and by taking reasonable steps to minimize risk, we can increase our chances of success and happiness.
Antinatalism may have some valid points, but it is not a philosophy that is suited to everyone. For individuals who are biologically healthy and intelligent, having a child can be a meaningful and rewarding experience which also contributes to the well-being of our species as a whole. I'm all for adopting children too. I'm not biologically healthy and hope that biologically healthy people will continue to have kids for the sake of humanity. I personally plan on adopting.
If you don't like humanity, that's a personal problem.
Do you have anything to offer for those who feel that it's the childrens suffering that is the issue?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[removed]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[deleted]
Forcing existence upon someone is inherently egotistical.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Why? Seem like they would fall in set natural and unnecessary.
Why would I be downvoted for this comment? Genuinely was asking why?
ITT: people who have not read any Epicurean work, (no Lucretius, none of the Epicurean letters, no Vatican Collection, not even The Swerve…let alone contemporary scholarship)…and yet are enthusiastically opposed on the grounds of its “hedonism.”
Where would you suggest newcomers start?
r/Epicureanism
I feel like Epicureanism is bout to pop.
The form of shamanism my wife and I are learning embody much of this.
What form is that?
Ahpay Amah.
Studying epicureanism may have helped my depression in college, actually.
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[deleted]
[removed]
cool nice read i bookmarked the site
I was done with this topic but the way you worded the title has drawn me back in
Robert Nozick's Experience Machine thought experiment seems to be a good rebuttal to Epicureanism.
Unless you just bite the bullet and say, “Hell yeah! Hook me up to the machine!” These sorts of hypotheticals rely on intuitive response and emotion. When those factors line up contrary to the desired conclusion, then the hypothetical loses its power as an argumentative device.
There are ways to argue against Nozick's machine, especially from an Epicurean viewpoint.
The main one would be that the machine does not in fact produce pleasure. An Epicurean would not accept the proposition that "electrochemical stimulation of a certain part of your brain" is the same thing as "eating a good meal". In essence, a pleasure has a distinct cause (and effect) because we are living, biological beings. There are no good short-cuts to pleasure. Only very very bad ones.
A more funny one is that the experience machine is just a magic trick... and like all magic tricks it's fake. "Beware the man behind the curtain!" winkwinknudgenudge
>An Epicurean would not accept the proposition that "electrochemical stimulation of a certain part of your brain" is the same thing as "eating a good meal". In essence, a pleasure has a distinct cause (and effect) because we are living, biological beings.
I've never seen this written as part of the definition of Epicurean pleasure. This article is how I've usually heard it described.
>I've never seen this written as part of the definition of Epicurean pleasure.
I'm not trying to write the definition, just my understanding of what Epicureanism is about.
>This article is how I've usually heard it described.
I don't think that the author of that article would accept Nozick's machine either.
[removed]
“Life’s highest pleasure”
It’s not “mischaracterized” as indicated so much as it’s just not as badass as stoicism.
haha ye hoo
[deleted]
Not trying to be rude here, but if you're being serious, sounds like you would benefit from seeing a therapist.
That or working out and picking up drinking/smoking, that's the perfect combo to perceive a state of happiness
I don't know. The more I've dug into it, the more it looks like a sex cult for Epicurus.
Care to site any definitive sources that claim as much?
Peter Green's Alexander to Actium probably represents the most concise take.
Yeah what are you talking about!? Haha
"[addressing a young man] I understand from you that your natural disposition is too much inclined toward sexual passion. Follow your inclination as you will, provided only that you neither violate the laws, disturb well-established customs, harm any one of your neighbors, injure your own body, nor waste your possessions. That you be not constrained by one or more of these conditions is impossible; for a man never gets any good from sexual passion, and he is fortunate if he does not receive harm." (Sayings 51)
Epicurus was bit of a prude...
Did Epicurus practice what he preached? According to our testimonia collected by Peter Green:
"His interest in women seems to have been strong, if tangential, and kept up (if we can believe Alciphron [Ep. 4.17]) into extreme old age. Though his professed attitude toward sex might be described as one of distrustful functionalism, the Garden abounded in stimulating female company, of which he clearly approved."
"Perhaps the most important thing to realize about Epicurus is that he was, in fact, the founder of a quasi-religious sect... Epicurean communes were obliged to take an oath, not only to obey the founder, but also to accept his doctrines. He was known as "The Leader" and flattered as a god... Though Epicureans found sex unprofitable and illusory, they did not on that account ban it, and 'there is no need to assume that the relations between the male and female members of the school were platonic [Rist 11]'. The Leader seems to have enjoyed droit de seigneur with several of his followers' wives and mistresses [Plutarch Moralia 1098B, 1129B].
"Act always, he told his followers, as though Epicurus is watching." [Epicur. ap. Sen. Ep. Mor. 25.5]
>Did Epicurus practice what he preached?
We don't know. There's no evidence either way from people who knew him.
His last will and testament is available to us, and it makes no mention of his own children. I'm not an expert on ancient Attic laws of inheritance, but I'd assume his children would be mentioned in such documents.
>According to our testimonia collected by Peter Green:
That name is unfamiliar to me. Can you give me a link or citation?
>"[...] the Garden abounded in stimulating female company, of which he clearly approved."
The Garden was a philosophical school that accepted women as students and faculty, yes.
>'there is no need to assume that the relations between the male and female members of the school were platonic [Rist 11]'.
Apart from the fact that no self-respecting Epicurean would take advice from Plato? :D
But seriously... There is no reason to assume so, but neither is there reason to assume that the relations were in any way different from relations in similar situations.
We in fact know that such relations existed, produced children, and Epicurus didn't condemn it. His will mentions and provides for the children of his student Metrodorus, and those children must have been born during the Garden period.
> The Leader seems to have enjoyed droit de seigneur with several of his followers' wives and mistresses [Plutarch Moralia 1098B, 1129B].
Here Plutarch is straight-up lying... I mean... "provides no evidence to back up his argument".
The text is from Peter Green's Alexander to Actium (California 1993), from Chapter 35, "The Garden of Epicurus" (618-630).
My original post simply expressed the direction I have come to lean concerning the preponderance of testimonia and scholarly debate. You are of course free to weigh the evidence yourself, toss out whatever you wish, and thus lean in whatever direction you wish.
I hope you'll understand if I tend to weigh the opinion of Peter Green and my own over yours. :D
That said, I'm sure you'll find many who lean in your direction.
>The text is from Peter Green's Alexander to Actium (California 1993), from Chapter 35, "The Garden of Epicurus" (618-630).
Thank you. I'll try to hunt that down.
>My original post simply expressed the direction I have come to lean concerning the preponderance of testimonia and scholarly debate.
The problem is that you're trying to evaluate Epicurus' personal behavior from those sources. Most of them are either vague or unreliable (like Plutarch) because they come from writers who were philosophically opposed to Epicurus, or wrote centuries later.
>You are of course free to weigh the evidence yourself, toss out whatever you wish, and thus lean in whatever direction you wish.
My direction is that we don't know, and probably can't know, because there are no sources from people who knew Epicurus personally.
>I hope you'll understand if I tend to weigh the opinion of Peter Green and my own over yours. :D
Of course. This is Reddit after all...
I guess I was confused by your initial post in which you claimed, as a positive statement, that Epicurus himself was "a bit of a prude." I believe my initial statement was: "I don't know." I followed that with an opinion.
For what it's worth, I do have a BA & MA in Classics, and a doctoral degree in Ancient Mediterranean history (not that any of that matters on the interwebs or carries any credibility). I feel equipped to weigh the testimonia appropriately, and indicate which direction that evidence has me leaning.
There are many scholars who take the "we can't know for sure" approach, and then compose entire book-length treatments on the subject that reflect their opinion based on the evidence available. That's the position we're in with nearly every facet of antiquity. Many of my colleagues in history who study more contemporary periods often claim we lack the evidence to do ancient history at all. Obviously, I do not share that perspective.
Epicureanism is a hedonism though.
You mean Buddhism?
All good philosophies have a common core since they're all based, in varying degrees, to the actuality of things. They may also have some amount of historical cross pollination and/or common roots.
Often mischaracterized as hedonism, epicureanism is actually [goes on to describe hedonism].
Like bro, you basically argued an excuse for rich people to practice ignorance of the consequences of their actions.
I will say that at least Epicureanism plans for long term happiness, but I still see no traces of selflessness in it.
Which aspect of the article led you to believe that?
The article essentially states one should practice restraint in extravagance; limit unnecessary and luxurious purchases rather than frequently indulging in them, and encourages one to take stock in what their true needs are so that unnecessary purchases can be seen as such.
Did we read the same article?
I don’t think they’re wrong in saying Epicureanism lacks selflessness, even if they’re behaving a bit disingenuously. Epicurus (and many of his contemporaries) seem to be concerned primarily with how the comfortable might best live and conduct themselves, without really concerning themselves greatly with the condition of those who might not be reading philosophical texts. Epicurus would counsel that it’s better to be a wise man who delights in simple pleasures than a rich one enjoying rich pleasures, because rich pleasures will not always be available and come with downsides like miserliness and jealousy - but that doesn’t really address the poor man who doesn’t have enough to live on, or is subject to the slings and arrows of a callous or even malicious society.
Maybe I haven’t read enough Epicurean philosophy, but it does seem to me that it’s got a kind of paternalistic naivety regarding poverty you see in a lot of works by rich people which counsel moderation - they’re just sort of assuming the idyllic simple life of the commoners and imagining it must be nice to not have so many demands on your time and resources, without really understanding the experience of poverty or deprivation.
>Maybe I haven’t read enough Epicurean philosophy, but it does seem to me that it’s got a kind of paternalistic naivety regarding poverty you see in a lot of works by rich people which counsel moderation - they’re just sort of assuming the idyllic simple life of the commoners and imagining it must be nice to not have so many demands on your time and resources, without really understanding the experience of poverty or deprivation.
This seems to be my main gripe with people trying to resurrect ancient schools of philosophy to help navigate modern life. They seem to imply that there is some trans-historical (transcendental even) nature of things, while forgetting that Epicurean philosophy was essentially created by someone of unimaginable privilege in the ancient world. As such, it reflects the character of the ancient world and society, and simply applying it 1:1 to modern solutions isn't a very viable solution to problems.
That's true of many of the philosophers whose influence has survived from the ancient period to modern day, but not all of them. A couple counterexamples off the top of my head: the Stoic philosopher Epictetus was born into slavery, and the Cynic philosopher Diogenes allegedly spent long stretches of his life variously homeless or enslaved.
You want me to find where something isn't?
>Often mischaracterized as hedonism
Title didn't say that. The title said, "debaucherous, hedonistic philosophy"
Epicureanism is hedonism. Doesn't mean it is debaucherous or "hedonistic" in the popular sense.
A human needs to be virtuous to be happy. A selfish person is less happy than they could be if they were not selfish. Thinking about one's self too much breeds neuroticism. Thinking about others breeds love, courage, and the rewards of seeing them happy.
You clearly missed the heavy Epicurean emphasis on friendship.
No, I'm in agreement with Epicurus, in contrast to the characterization this is replying to.
In theory but not in practice.
[deleted]
loopsataspool t1_j9einwc wrote
Epicurus also taught that the universe is infinite and eternal and that all matter is made up of tiny, invisible particles called atoms.
All occurrences in the natural world are ultimately the result of atoms moving and interacting in empty space.
“Epicurus deviated from Democritus by proposing the idea of atomic ‘swerve’, which holds that atoms may deviate from their expected course, thus permitting humans to possess free will in an otherwise deterministic universe.”
I like the cut of his jib.