- Are you surprised that Epicurus's prose was apparently so bland? 98 Shouldn't a Happiness philosopher cultivate style and panache?
- COMMENT?: "it was because of his excessive reasonableness that he did not engage in politics." 103
- COMMENT?: "concepts are clear and distinct evidences of truth." 107
- What do you think Epicurus meant by "the totality of things was always just as it is..."? 115
- Do you also think "there are infinite worlds..."? 117
- "...on the dissolution of the entire organism the soul is scattered abroad..."128 Is there a better word for what's scattered than soul? Maybe spirit or consciousness or identity or... ?
- Do you agree that an incorporeal soul "would not be able to act upon or be acted upon"? 129
- Is "our happiness bound up with causal knowledge of the heavenly bodies"? 134
- Are you "liberated from everything that drives other[s] to the extremes of fear"? 136
- Without material stimulation would the mind be a tabula rasa? 140
- Why do you think Epicurus thought mind and soul conjoin "in the mid space of the breast"? 142
- Does it bother you to be "a fortuitous concourse of atoms" (along with everything else)? 146
- Is death nothing to you? 155 Do the Epicureans have the antidote for the "darkling terror in the mind"? 156
- Those are my questions, post yours in comments. You can respond to your own questions. If your question references a particular passage in the text, give us the page #(s).
Wednesday, September 20, 2023
Questions Sep 21
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
COMMENT?: "it was because of his excessive reasonableness that he did not engage in politics." 103
ReplyDeleteWhile I do think this is an understandable response to politics, and without knowing well the ins and outs of the political situation at the time, beyond it being shortly after the death of Alexander the Great and the turmoil and uncertainty that left behind, I still think it can be said to be a selfish view of politics. It is particularly easy if you are a member of a privileged class to hold this view of politics, as you mostly can ignore it and not suffer because of it. We even still see this attitude today among those with a certain amount of privilege and affluence, an idea that politics doesn't have much influence on their life and they in reverse don't have much influence on politics. Again, I believe this to be a selfish and somewhat defeatist view. I personally do not believe a proper ethic can be complete without addressing the political system of their respective time. The respective political systems throughout time have unquestionably been one of the, if not the single greatest source of suffering. To avoid such a thing seems a great blind spot for any philosopher tackling ethics.
Agreed. The Epics had lots of good ideas about how to live, but apolitical disinterest was not one of them. But there are degrees of disengagement... maybe they just didn't want to hold office, that's understandable. But if their Garden happiness was at the cost of being uninformed about injustice in their society, and uninvolved in addressing it, that's too high a price.
DeleteVery Insightful. If someone has no need to engage with politics due to being of a higher class or more benefited by the existing status quo, it makes sense that that privilege would allow them not to engage in said politics.
DeleteWithout material stimulation would the mind be a tabula rasa? 140
ReplyDeleteIf we were born floating in an infinite void with absolutely nothing in it but ourselves (meaning we have the ability to think and perceive, but no physical body connected to said consciousness), how would any thoughts ever be made? Without “material stimulation” there is nothing to bounce off of, meaning nothing returns to our mind. Life is just stuff bouncing off of earth other. Light bounces off of objects to our eyes, allowing us to see. People talk back and forth to each other, learning more with each interaction. Atoms bounce off of each other and make everything in the universe. How could anything be thought of if there is nothing but ourselves? All to say, this is why a mind without material stimulation would be “tabula rasa”. Minds are meant to observe, and if they so choose, draw conclusions from said observations. Without anything to observe, what use is a mind?
Of course John Locke thought the mind of a newborn starts out without having material stimulation and is thus a blank slate. But what if future humans learn to digitize themselves and "live" like Johnny Depp in "Transcendence" (in a computer)... would digital 1s and 0s count as material stimulation? I say no, even though the computer is a material object.
DeleteDo you agree that an incorporeal soul "would not be able to act upon or be acted upon"? 129
ReplyDeleteAt first I thought, “no this cant be right,” because I was thinking of a ghost and not Epicurus’s incorporeal soul. A ghost can still see and hear, therefore, a ghost can be acted upon, even if it is unintentional. An entity with the ability to perceive has no choice but to be acted upon. An incorporeal soul, however, cannot be aware of the world around it, or even of itself, by definition. Without the ability to observe any part of the material world, you cannot therefore be affected by the material world in a way that matters.
Which is why Epic atomists have no use for incorporeal souls. It's indeed the "ghost in the machine" problem Descartes never resolved with his dualism.
DeleteQuestion: What do you think qualifies something for living? Maybe you believe in the biological definition, or maybe you think there are different levels to living? Does Epicurus's incorporeal soul qualify? If so, why? If not, what qualification for your definition of living is it missing in it?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your question!
DeleteI put "live" in quotes when referencing the uploaded version of Johnny above because I think a disembodied consciousness is not a biological life form. It lacks significant immediate contact with a natural environment, in the absence of which humanity (which is a biological condition, or always has been) is lost. But what does anyone else here think? Do you want to be uploaded someday? Under what conditions and circumstances?
Replying to Rusty, below (because I'm not seeing a reply button beneath his post): I do not agree that it is "clearly evidenced..." In fact, I think he is much too glib in asserting "clear and distinct"-'ness in a number of instances. A lot of that must have been rhetorical, and "clearly" pre-scientific.
DeleteDo you agree with Epicurus that it is "clearly evidenced by the functions and affections of the soul" that the soul is a "body composed of fine particles that are dispersed throughout the entire organism," or rather would you say that Epicurus may have some unjustified conclusions implicit in his statement? P. 127
ReplyDeleteIs "our happiness bound up with causal knowledge of the heavenly bodies"? 134
DeleteEpicurus should hope not, since his causal knowledge of the heavenly bodies was undoubtedly lacking tremendously. This statement reminds me of something I used to hear christians say growing up. They used to say essentially that a belief in the christian God, and the veracity of the Bible were necessary for happiness. Without these things a person would surely lack purpose and happiness. So essentially, both Epicurus and the Christians are saying in their own way, without belief in the dogmas that we are presenting, you cannot achieve happiness. Neither of course seeing it as "belief in dogma" but rather "knowledge of the fundamental truth of the universe".
How do you feel about the Epicurus characteristics of a "wise man"? What parts do you agree and disagree with? Why?
Delete