But being dogmatic about these issues and using words like "clearly, for sure, SINGLE, one and only etc isn't the right attitude. There is nothing "single" in these matters. — dimosthenis9
My understanding is Epicurus and his followers discouraged participation in politics. Yet it seems you emphasize its relation to and impact upon political systems/theories in arguing for its influence. — Ciceronianus
focus on politics we see in Western history indicates that Epicureanism is less influential than you believe. — Ciceronianus
why is that the wrong approach? Why, clearly, the wrong one? — Garrett Travers
Stated it already in my previous post. Never used the word "clearly" though. — dimosthenis9
Oh, it has most certainly lost a great deal of ground. But the U.S. Constitution, and by extension the copy-cat states it produced, is an Epicurean document for an Epicurean society at base function, — Garrett Travers
The Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence for that matter, as well as the Declaration of the Rights of the Man and Citizens which Revolutionary France created, are based on the concept of human or natural rights. — Ciceronianus
The concept of such "rights" was foreign to both Epicureanism and Stoicism, I think. — Ciceronianus
The Epicurean and the Stoic weren't motivated by a concern for their rights or the rights of others in their quest for tranquility. — Ciceronianus
I think that you're being anachronistic when you call the Constitution an Epicurean document, or the U.S. of the time an Epicurean society. — Ciceronianus
The most important one is that Epicureans espouse belief while I eschew it
entirely. The entire premise of good and evil is predicated on universal
morality rather than relative enlightened ethics. — SkyLeach
My mind must have a bias. It's an essential component of function. I must
therefore lean towards one probable truth over another in order to form any
opinions. If I (or anyone) wishes to retain their mental plasticity it is
essential that they examine all information from multiple perspectives,
however, and that is impossible if one embraces belief over probability. — SkyLeach
Of course if one speaks English then it's nearly impossible to avoid using the
word belief or I believe since it is so tightly entwined with talking or
writing about perspectives. — SkyLeach
I don't understand what philosophical point you are making. What has influence got to do with anything? — Bartricks
What matters to a philosopher is what's true, not who or what influenced who. — Bartricks
Epicurus thought death was not a harm to the one who dies. That's obviously false, is it not? — Bartricks
He arrived at his highly counter-intuitive conclusion by combining a very plausible principle about harm -namely, that, to be harmed, you need to exist at the time of the harm - with the assumption that death marks the cessation of our existence, and in this way concluded that death was not a harm (he had another argument too, but it appeals to a far less plausible principle about a harm). — Bartricks
That's not a very good argument though, regardless of how influential it has been (indeed, the form the influence has taken as been to try and locate the fault in it). It's not a very good argument because the conclusion is so counter-intuitive that you need both premises to be extremely strong such that rejecting either would be more counter-intuitive than accepting the conclusion. — Bartricks
That is simply not the case with either premise. Thus, a rational person will reject one or other of the premises rather than draw the conclusion. That is, the fact their combination leads to that conclusion is good evidence that at least one of them is false. — Bartricks
So he's quite a bad philosopher, however influential he might have been. — Bartricks
'll have to read the article you cite, but I think Epicureanism like Stoicism teaches that happiness, or the good life, is in large part dependent on a person not acting in a manner which exposes us to harm or disturbance, as reason tells us that we won't achieve tranquility, happiness, and peacefulness in that case. — Ciceronianus
So, we shouldn't engage in conflict with others, or harm them, seek power over others, covet riches, fame and power. — Ciceronianus
I don't think Epicureans or Stoics were concerned with what a good government would be; in fact, I think that to a sage of either school it ultimately wouldn't matter what a government was or did. — Ciceronianus
If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that government must nonetheless be of a particular kind in order for us to achieve the Epicurean (maybe Stoic too) goals or that particular forms of government are more conducive to achievement of those goals than others. — Ciceronianus
I assume those governments would be less intrusive than others in the sense that their citizens wouldn't be compelled to act in a manner contrary to the achievement of tranquility and happiness. — Ciceronianus
If the goal of government is to promote happiness and tranquility — Ciceronianus
we have to address the possibility that in that case a government would have to be intrusive enough to prevent citizens from preventing other citizens from achieving Epicurean goals — Ciceronianus
In other words, compelling citizens to act like Epicureans — Ciceronianus
That would mean citizens should be prohibited from engaging in conflict with others, acquisition of wealth and power, to the detriment of others, etc. and doing anything which would inhibit the peace and tranquility of their fellow citizens. — Ciceronianus
You may say that's where the concept of rights comes in to play. It may, within limits. But the well-being of fellow citizens has never been of much significance to those who claim to have rights. — Ciceronianus
But the well-being of fellow citizens has never been of much significance to those who claim to have rights. — Ciceronianus
But, essentially, no, it isn't a pain. It's not as if you are around to experience your own death. Leading up to dying may be painful, but not death itself. Pain is a neurological phenomenon, and death is the end of neurological phenomena. — Garrett Travers
No, I don't think so. All you need is knowledge of the function of the brain. It's crazy to think that he was thinking on this level almost 3000 years ago. He really was right. — Garrett Travers
So, Epicurus has not shown us that death is harmless, but rather that we do not cease to exist upon dying. — Bartricks
You're appealing to a different version of the argument, one that is even less plausible.
One version of the argument appeals to the 'experience' condition (that to be harmed, you need to experience the harm in question). The other appeals to the 'existence' condition (that to be harmed, you need to exist at the time). — Bartricks
He just assumes the mind is the brain. Or rather, that the mind is made of soul atoms (he didn't believe our minds are our brains, but rather that they are nevertheless material entities composed of invisible soul atoms - the difference is moot, however). — Bartricks
He infers that sensible things are made of atoms. But the mind is not a sensible thing. — Bartricks
Thus he simply assumes - on the basis of no positive evidence - that our minds are also made of atoms and that they cease to exist when the atoms disperse. That's just an assumption. — Bartricks
My point also was about arguments. If you have a deductively valid argument that leads to a highly counter-intuitive conclusion - that is, a conclusion that our reason tells us is false - then that's prima facie evidence that at least one of the premises is false. — Bartricks
The conclusion flies in the face of what our reason tells us: our reason tells us that death is a harm - the gravest of all harms. — Bartricks
That's the main reason why killing others is wrong - it harms them. — Bartricks
That's why suicide is irrational under most circumstances: it is not in your best interests unless you are in unending agony or something — Bartricks
Premise 1 is self-evident to reason. It is to mine and it was to Epicurus's and it is to many people's. So, it does have some rational support and we should not reject it lightly. However, it does not have greater self-evidence than the proposition that death is a harm. — Bartricks
So, Epicurus has not shown us that death is harmless, but rather that we do not cease to exist upon dying. — Bartricks
On the assumption that we continue to exist after death, is death still to be considered harmful? — Janus
Would the answer to that not depend on the conditions we find ourselves in after death? — Janus
Harm requires existence. — Bartricks
You do have exist and to experience pain to be in pain. What exactly are you highlighting is the issue. — Garrett Travers
The mind is the brain and the brain is literally made of atoms. — Garrett Travers
If existence presupposes harm, then non-existence (death) is not harmful. Death most certainly is the end of our existence according to all gathered empirical evidence. Should I assume that you're talking some afterlife, religious stuff? — Garrett Travers
You don't know your Epicurus. — Bartricks
It is 'harm' not 'pain'. Yes, pain has to be experienced to be pain, for pain 'is' a kind of experience. — Bartricks
But not all harms are pains. And we can be harmed without experiencing the harm. — Bartricks
So, the 'experience' condition on harm is implausible. The 'existence' condition, by contrast, is highly plausible. It is why there is a debate over the harmfulness of death to this day. The experience condition, by contrast, is almost universally rejected as it is simply exposed to too many counterexamples. Hard, however, to come up with a counterexample to the existence condition that would not simply beg the question. So, Epicurus's lasting influence on the philosophy of death comes via his existence condition, not his experience condition. — Bartricks
He did not think the mind was the brain. He thought it was made of atoms. And he thought that brain was made of atoms. But he didn't think the mind was the brain. He thought our entire bodies are suffused with invisible soul atoms. — Bartricks
It's beside the point, however, for his atomism about the mind is simply false and has no support from reason. It's as stupid as thinking that as my spoon is made of metal, I am made of metal. — Bartricks
The rest is just you dogmatically insisting that materialism about everything is true in defiance of what our reason says. If you don't care to listen to Reason when Reason contradicts what you believe then you're fated never to learn that you're wrong. — Bartricks
And then you just assert that death ends our existence. Er, no it doesn't. Look:
1. If our deaths harm us, then we must exist at the time of our deaths
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore, we must exist at the time of our deaths. — Bartricks
Death is not the end: listen to reason. It's the beginning of something - of something really bad. — Bartricks
Epicurus assumes that death is the end. That's precisely what his own principle implies is 'not' the case! He's not a good reasoner. — Bartricks
Spare me the insults in favor of arguments. That's the only time I'm going to be polite about it. — Garrett Travers
How do we know he didn't mean "harm" in the sense of pain? Especially considering he's been translated from an old, old language. — Garrett Travers
If Epicurus drew a distinction himself, then you and I are in accord and I regard Epicurus' assertion as clearly, and demonstrably false. — Garrett Travers
I think you need to revisit his philosophy of mind. What he thought was that the thinking/experiencing element of was an organ located in the chest. If you transfer the ideas over 1 to 1, they're the same. He made no distinction between the mind, and the organ that was responsible for producing experience. https://iep.utm.edu/epicur/#SH3f — Garrett Travers
Again, we're talking about a philosopher from almost 3 millennia ago, let's keep that in mind. — Garrett Travers
What have you presented that is accurately characterized by "reason?" What you said was reason has no definition, and flies in the face of modern neuroscience and long-held logical validity, which I literally checked myself via truth-table to investigate. — Garrett Travers
And then you just assert that death ends our existence. Er, no it doesn't. Look:
1. If our deaths harm us, then we must exist at the time of our deaths
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore, we must exist at the time of our deaths.
— Bartricks
Yes, this is valid. But, is it true. — Garrett Travers
Is this your usage of harm:
physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.
If so, then death is the definition of harm in its final form individually. — Garrett Travers
I don't know what this means. Death is not the end of... what? And, how do you know? — Garrett Travers
1. If our deaths harm us, then we must exist at the time of our deaths
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore, we must exist at the time of our deaths. — Bartricks
Seems you do not know your insults either - that's not an insult, but just an observation: you kept conflating the experience and existence conditions. — Bartricks
but then his argument would be even weaker than it is. — Bartricks
The experience condition on harm is not very plausible — Bartricks
It's exposed to loads of counterexamples and it is only plausible when harm is taken to be synonymous with pain. — Bartricks
The existence condition on harm is, by contrast, very plausible. Our reason represents it to be true - mine does and clearly Epicurus's does too and so too does the reason of countless others, for otherwise we would not still be debating Epicurus's argument - and it is not exposed to counterexamples. — Bartricks
He didn't explicitly draw it, rather two distinct lines of argument can be discerned in his writings on death, one that assumes the experience condition and one that assumes the existence condition. — Bartricks
If that's true, it is nevertheless beside the point for what's wrong about his philosophy of mind is not where he locates the mind in the sensible body, but his assumption that the mind is a sensible body. It's just an assumption. There's no evidence the mind is a sensible body - all the evidence is the other way. The reasoning, then as now, is just that 'sensible things are made of sensible things.....therefore the mind is too'. Or, more cautiously 'as sensible things are made of yet smaller sensible things, let's have as our working hypothesis that the mind is too', only at some point it ceases to be a working hypothesis and instead becomes an article of faith. — Bartricks
I don't see the relevance. Materialism about the mind was just an assumption back then, and it is just an assumption now. — Bartricks
There's no evidence the mind is material and plenty that it isn't — Bartricks
Yet it does mark the end of body's functioning. Thus, we - the minds who are harmed by dying - are not our sensible bodies. — Bartricks
I don't know what you mean here. I think you have faith in materialism and thus take any argument that implies materialism is false to be unsound on that basis alone. — Bartricks
It's not just valid. It is sound. If you reject 1, you reject one of Epicurus's principles. And anyway, we would need an argument against 1, given it seems self-evidently true (that which seems self-evidently true can, of course, be false, but an argument showing that its truth would conflict with even more apparently self-evidently true truths would be needed). — Bartricks
And 2 is manifest to reason, is it not? — Bartricks
No, I have no definition of harm. Most harm - not all by any means, but most - involves some kind of suffering. And so my working hypothesis is that our deaths alter our condition such that we are exposed to far, far greater risks of suffering after it than before. — Bartricks
It may be that the cessation of the functioning of our bodies results in us suffering from locked-in syndrome. That is, we are conscious, but lack sight, smell, taste, hearing and touch. And are thus tormented in that way. This is just guesswork however. That our deaths harm us is, I think, beyond doubt; what form that harm takes is a matter of speculation. — Bartricks
Death is not the end of our existence. And I know because I listen to reason. Here, once more, is how I know: — Bartricks
1. If our deaths harm us, then we must exist at the time of our deaths
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore, we must exist at the time of our deaths. — Bartricks
I wasn't asking. I kept conflating, and you kept asserting no distinction was made by Epicurus, which is elemental. — Garrett Travers
No, it would be precisely correct and in accord with modern neuroscience. — Garrett Travers
Any evidence at all will do. — Garrett Travers
I don't know what this means, either. — Garrett Travers
A valid argument. But, valid does not imply correct. — Garrett Travers
You see? — Garrett Travers
He made two distinct arguments for the harmlessness of death, as you should know. One appeals to the experience condition, the other to the existence condition. — Bartricks
But i imagine that this is going to be your response to all the arguments i make. Oh, but, but, but, science — Bartricks
Your argument is wrong, because science. — Bartricks
And I don't even realize that science isn't investigating what the mind is, as that's a topic in metaphysics, not phsyics or biology, but science. — Bartricks
i have read popular books in which scientists with no expertise in philosophy make philosophical pronouncements, and on this basis 'science' refutes you, Dr Bartricks. Science!!! — Bartricks
Yes, I am sure you don't. This isn't going well is it? Would it help if you imagined I'm a scientist? I think you must be one of those people that those deodorant and facial cream adverts are designed for - you know, the ones that show little red or white orbs travelling through our skin. "Oo, them's atoms - I want atom deodorant as it is used by science and I want to smell of science. This must be good deodorant - look at the atoms! I want some. i want to smell of science and atoms". — Bartricks
Yes, but it does mean that if its premises are true, then so too is its conclusion. And its premises are true. — Bartricks
I see something, certainly. Maybe we should move onto the Epicurean paradox and you can show me how science has shown God doesn't exist. — Bartricks
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.