Episode 126 - Letter to Pythocles 01 - Introduction On The Basic Approach of Epicurean Philosophy
Date: 06/15/22
Link: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/2554-episode-one-hundred-twenty-six-letter-to-pythocles-01-introduction-on-the-basic/
Summary
Section titled “Summary”Joshua reads sections 84-88, the introduction to the Letter to Pythocles, as the group welcomes back guest panelist Don for his first appearance in several months. Sections 84-85 open with Epicurus thanking Cleon for delivering Pythocles’s request for a summary on celestial phenomena; Don observes how the letter humanizes the Garden by showing real people requesting help from a philosopher who was glad to provide it, and notes that the Greek word macarios (blessed/happy) used here is the same word as for the blessed life of the gods in Principal Doctrine 1. Section 86 establishes the crucial distinction: celestial phenomena, unlike atomic theory, admit multiple possible causes — because we cannot get close enough to the heavens to eliminate alternatives — while the group discusses Ibn al-Haytham (10th-century Arab scholar, pioneer of optics and the scientific method) and asks whether “science” is the right word for what Epicurean inquiry was. Section 87 rejects “empty assumptions and arbitrary principles” (kenis doxis — the same root word as void and empty desires), contrasting Epicurean methodology with Tertullian’s credo quia absurdum (“I believe because it is absurd”), while section 88 closes with the warning against abandoning the path of inquiry and “having recourse to myth” (mython). The episode is recorded on June 12, 2022, and closes with Cassius’s declaration that “Epicurus is the once and future philosopher of humanity.”
Transcript
Section titled “Transcript”Cassius: Welcome to Episode 126 of Lucretius Today. I’m your host Cassius, and today we begin Epicurus’s Letter to Pythocles. We have the great pleasure to welcome back our friend Don to the podcast for at least the next two weeks. Now let’s join Joshua reading today’s text.
Joshua: Cleon brought me a letter from you in which you continue to express a kindly feeling towards me, which is a just return for my interest in you, and you attempt with some success to recall the arguments which lead to a life of blessedness. You ask me to send you a brief argument about the phenomena of the sky in a short sketch, that you may easily recall it to mind, or you say that what I have written in my other works is hard to remember, even though, as you state, you constantly have them in your hands. I was glad to receive your request and felt constrained to answer it by pleasant expectations for the future. Therefore, as I have finished all my other writings, I now intend to accomplish your request, feeling that these arguments will be of value to many other persons as well, and especially to those who have but recently tasted the genuine inquiry into nature, and also to those who are involved too deeply in the business of some regular occupation. Therefore lay good hold on it, keep it in mind, and go through it all keenly together with the rest which I sent in the small epitome to Herodotus. First of all then, we must not suppose that any other object is to be gained from the knowledge of the phenomena of the sky, whether they are dealt with in connection with other doctrines or independently, than peace of mind and a sure confidence, just as in all other branches of study. We must not try to force an impossible explanation, nor employ a method of inquiry like our reasoning either about the modes of life or with respect to the solution of other physical problems. Witness such propositions as that the universe consists of bodies and the intangible, or that the elements are indivisible, and all such statements in circumstances where there is only one explanation which harmonizes with phenomena — for this is not so with the things above us. They admit of more than one cause of coming into being and more than one account of their nature which harmonizes with our sensation. For we must not conduct scientific investigation by means of empty assumptions and arbitrary principles, but follow the lead of phenomena; for our life has not now any place for irrational belief and groundless imaginings, but we must live free from trouble. Now all goes on without disturbance as far as regards each of those things which may be explained in several ways so as to harmonize with what we perceive, when one admits, as we are bound to do, probable theories about them. But when one accepts one theory and rejects another which harmonizes as well with the phenomenon, it is obvious that he altogether leaves the path of scientific inquiry and has recourse to myth. Now we can obtain indications of what happens above from some of the phenomena on earth, or we can observe how they come to pass; but we cannot observe the phenomena in the sky, or they may be produced in several ways. Yet we must never desert the appearance of each of these phenomena, and further as regards what is associated with it we must distinguish those things whose production in several ways is not contradicted by phenomena on earth.
Cassius: Thank you, Joshua. Before we jump into the text, it would be worthwhile to note where we are: the preceding passage established that we don’t investigate science according to arbitrary principles — we avoid irrational beliefs and groundless imaginings. As long as we have at least one theory consistent with phenomena, that’s where we need to be. And it becomes a hazard if you attempt to choose among several theories that are all consistent with the evidence — that too is a problem because it leaves the path of rational inquiry. So today’s text will show examples of his analysis of multiple possible explanations.
Don, welcome back. What strikes you most about the opening of this letter?
Don: I think what strikes me most is how it humanizes the Garden. I almost get a vision of Epicurus’s desk with piles of papyrus — him saying “okay, I’ve finished all my other writings, now I can actually write this letter.” And he’s addressing someone by name, talking about kindly feelings — these were living, breathing human beings with real interactions. And the thing about “pleasant expectations for the future” — this is not “eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you die.” He’s building a life of happiness, and by sharing this understanding he expects pleasant expectations for the future. You can see the Garden working.
Cassius: And the word “argument” in the second sentence — not a disagreement between people, but a summary. Like Milton starting each book of Paradise Lost with “the argument,” meaning the summary of what follows. And Don, you noticed the Greek word for blessed here?
Don: Yes — “arguments which lead to a life of blessedness.” The Greek word is macarios — the same word used throughout for the life of the gods in Principal Doctrine 1. Blessed, happy, the life of the gods — it’s the same word Epicurus uses consistently. That gets lost sometimes in translations that vary between “blessed,” “happy,” and so forth.
Cassius: And Joshua, you made the point about the references to “those involved in the business of some regular occupation.”
Joshua: He’s not talking to a commune of students living walled off from the world. He’s talking to people who go about their daily lives. And I think the fact that he also refers back to the Letter to Herodotus — “together with the rest which I sent in the small epitome to Herodotus” — really links these two letters together. We went through Herodotus and found a tremendous amount of good material, and now he’s referring to it as a companion to this one.
Cassius: Now section 85 says he intends this letter for many other persons, especially those who have “recently tasted the genuine inquiry into nature” and those too busy for the full works. The letter is designed so people can “lay good hold on it” and keep it in mind.
Section 86 is where a fascinating distinction appears. He says we must not try to “force an impossible explanation” when investigating celestial phenomena — because “this is not so with the things above us; they admit of more than one cause.” But for certain things — like that the universe consists of bodies and the intangible, or that the elements are indivisible — there is only one explanation that harmonizes with phenomena. What is the basis for that greater confidence?
Joshua: I think when you’re talking about things right in front of you, you can be more confident because you’re right on top of it. But with things in the sky, you’re so far away and have such limited ability to observe accurately that you have to be much more cautious. You can touch a rock; you can smell bread from the bakery through the walls. With the stars, all you have is sight — not touch, taste, smell, or the ability to get closer.
Don: Though Lucretius does mention the heat of the sun as something we can sense — so there is a second sense there beyond sight. But I think Joshua’s point stands: multiple lines of evidence close to us vs. just one type of observation for distant phenomena.
Martin: Also there is a question of whether the word “science” is appropriate for what we’re discussing here. At that time, what we call science was just part of philosophy — there were no separate disciplines or professions. The systematic experimental method as we understand it today really comes later, arguably with Ibn al-Haytham in the 10th century Baghdad, who was a pioneer of optics and introduced something like scientific methodology for the first time. Francis Bacon is often cited in the Western tradition, but Ibn al-Haytham preceded him.
Don: That’s the spelling for listeners — Ibn al-Haytham: I-B-N A-L-H-A-Y-T-H-A-M. And you’re absolutely right, Martin. Baghdad in the 10th century was the intellectual center of the western world, and the Arab world was really the inheritor of a lot of the Greek texts and findings. The Greek philosophical material was largely preserved in the Arab world — the Latin material was preserved by the church in the west, which preserved whatever the church decided to preserve. And there’s the story of Maximus Planudes, a Christian monk who rediscovered Claudius Ptolemy’s lost work on geography in a bookseller’s stall in Constantinople, which led to the first real map of the world in the modern age.
Cassius: The one clear example of experimental method in the ancient Greek world is Eratosthenes’s measurement of the earth’s circumference — actually doing a physical measurement using shadows and geometry.
Joshua: My history professor had a quote he attributed to Francis Bacon — maybe not exact: “For all of their knowledge, for all of their wisdom, for all of their learning, the Greeks have not given us one good experiment.” And I think that’s largely true, with Eratosthenes as the main exception.
Cassius: Now section 87 is one of the most important sentences in the whole letter: “For we must not conduct scientific investigation by means of empty assumptions and arbitrary principles, but follow the lead of phenomena; for our life has not now any place for irrational belief and groundless imaginings, but we must live free from trouble.” Don, you noted something about the word “irrational belief” in the Greek.
Don: The Greek is kenis doxis — “empty belief.” And kenan is the same root word used for the void and for empty desires elsewhere. So it’s literally “void belief,” “belief that has nothing supporting it” — the same emptiness as the void. That connection is easy to miss in translation.
Cassius: And the contrast is Tertullian’s credo quia absurdum — “I believe because it is absurd.” I believe what you’re saying about the early Christians being credulous. This is literally the opposite of the Epicurean method: empty assumptions, arbitrary principles, belief without evidence. And when one accepts one theory and rejects another which “harmonizes as well with the phenomenon,” he says “it is obvious that he altogether leaves the path of scientific inquiry and has recourse to myth” — mython in the Greek.
Martin: And in this context, conspiracy theories would also fall under this. You accept one explanation without evidence over others — it’s the same error.
Don: And the reason it matters is illustrated by Claudius Ptolemy. When he couldn’t explain the wandering of the planets within his geocentric model, instead of saying “I need to revise my model,” he said “I must be closer to Zeus.” He stuck with his preferred theory in the face of what it couldn’t explain, and this became the template for astronomical thinking endorsed by the Catholic Church all the way through the Renaissance. That’s what happens when you pick one theory arbitrarily and won’t abandon it even as the evidence piles up against it.
Cassius: Yes. And section 88 closes with “yet we must never desert the appearance of each of these phenomena.” In my mind, that’s the most basic expression of what separates those who think Epicurus had something right from those who don’t — he refuses to desert his sensations and his observations, never willing to desert those in favor of imaginings about things that have no evidence. In the end, maybe all of Epicurean philosophy comes down to an evidence rule: what standard will you apply to decide whether what someone is saying to you is empty fantasizing or something serious?
For some final observations: from the very beginning of Lucretius Book 1 — “nothing comes from that which does not exist” — everything follows in a chain of reasoning from observable fact. I would abandon Epicurean philosophy tomorrow if someone could show me evidence of something coming from nothing — if you could systematically raise people from the dead in front of me, I would be pretty impressed. I would still look for a material cause, but I’d be impressed.
Joshua: And I think it’s also important to note that Epicurus is taking a position between credulity on one side and radical skepticism on the other. He’s not saying nothing can be known. He’s saying some things you can know and some things you can’t — and you shouldn’t accept either the credulity of faith-based reasoning nor should you reject all conclusions. That’s the third position: some things are provable through the senses, and the method matters.
Cassius: Very well said. My closing statement today would be: we’re recording this on June 12, 2022, and we have all sorts of problems in the world right now that call us away from the study of philosophy. Epicurus is a great way to keep grounded on the ultimate questions that will concern us on our dying day — and more importantly, on the days that matter most, which is every day we’re alive and making choices. Epicurus is the once and future philosopher of humanity, in a very deep way that transcends day-to-day politics.
Don, your closing thoughts?
Don: I think the opening of this letter really humanizes Epicurus and gives us a glimpse into how the Garden actually worked — real friendly relations, real requests for help, real people trying to live better. And the foundational concepts here about why we study nature — not for the sake of being the best astronomers, but for peace of mind and sure confidence — I think that’s essential to understand before we get into the specific celestial phenomena coming up in the next few weeks.
Cassius: And Martin, anything to add?
Martin: Nothing to add today.
Cassius: Very good. We’ll come back next week with the next section of the Letter to Pythocles. Thanks to everybody, and we’ll see you soon. Goodbye.
Don: Thanks for having me. Goodbye.
Joshua: Goodbye.
Martin: Bye.