Dead Reddit / The "Isms" Thread

Hiram, I did not say no one had contributed to philosophy about pleasure-- neither is it true that no physicist contributed to the ability of Einstein to have his insight. But it is still true that no one but Epicurus put the pieces of Physics, Canon and Ethics together so clearly, and no one worked as hard and tirelessly as he did to teach it. He was not a "prophet"-- he was a scientist and a philosopher. And IMO he clearly deserves a first rank place among the philosophers, or I would not call myself an Epicurean but something else.

Quote from Elayne

Hiram, I did not say no one had contributed to philosophy about pleasure-- neither is it true that no physicist contributed to the ability of Einstein to have his insight. But it is still true that no one but Epicurus put the pieces of Physics, Canon and Ethics together so clearly, and no one worked as hard and tirelessly as he did to teach it. He was not a "prophet"-- he was a scientist and a philosopher. And IMO he clearly deserves a first rank place among the philosophers, or I would not call myself an Epicurean but something else.

I agree with this. So maybe the only difference is that I'm not scared to engage the variety of philosophical voices (like Philodemus did, as we see in his scrolls which were ongoing conversations between Epicureans and with other schools).

Also, not sure if you're familiar with this source but there's a way in which Epicurean philosophy is supposed to be a living, evolving philosophical tradition in addition to the study of the original ideas (this allows for scientific and empirical input, even cultural insights, to add to the tradition). Epicurus himself gave, in addition to the canon and how to use it, specific instructions on innovation which include two criteria:

Quote

The relevant portion on doctrinal innovation has to do with the two criteria established by Epicurus himself to prevent muddling of doctrines that disagree with each other. These are consistency and coherence.

In the necessary and inevitable process of updating Epicurean teaching and tradition, I have subjected the potential innovations to the criteria given by Epicurus (Erler, 2011) dealing with innovation and forbidding the ‘muddling’ of doctrines that disagree with each other. The two guidelines provided by Epicurus are akoloythia and symphonia, which translate as consistency (has no internal contradictions) and coherence (is in symphony with the rest of Epicurus’ doctrine).

Here was my initial post on this, the source is in Erler

http://societyofepicurus.com/epicurus-instr…-on-innovation/

Well, no, it would not be a difference between us to say that I am "scared" to engage other philosophic voices. I am surprised to hear you say that, when you know I have been outspoken when I disagree! Lol!

And I agree entirely with his advice on consistency and coherence. New information such as more accurate physics and astronomy do not change the underlying structure of his philosophy-- the consistency and coherence remains intact. Applying the ethics to new situations that didn't exist in his time, due to new technology, and using research about what activities tend to cause pleasure for most typical humans-- those are other examples of innovation.

But there are also a lot of things that are inconsistent and incoherent, and I am strongly opposed to those things being tacked onto the philosophy.