Thomas Jefferson's Religious Beliefs

    After reading about Jefferson's beliefs (in the above article) I find it harder to take in his Epicurean perspectives.


    Would be curious if any one else has thoughts around this?

    Thanks for the link, Kalosyni , to the article on Jefferson's beliefs.


    I have any number of problems with Thomas Jefferson and remain ambivalent with regards to him. He's never been one of my favorite Founders (I'm more a Franklin fan). I've also never been entirely comfortable with his image being in the header to this forum, but that is entirely Cassius 's call.


    I don't believe Jefferson was entirely an Epicurean, but I'm sure he found facets of the philosophy with which he agreed. He was also enamored with Jesus as a philosopher since he created what came to be known as The Jefferson Bible. He also praises Epictetus in a number of places including:

    Quote

    In morality read Epictetus, Xenophontis memorabilia, Plato’s Socratic dialogues, Cicero’s philosophies.

    So, I think Jefferson's "I am an Epicurean" should best be understood as only a part of his philosophical outlook, which appears to me to be quite eclectic if syncretic (to use last week's Word of Week :) ). As any "gentleman" of the 18th century, he was widely read in ancient Greek and Latin authors. He peppers excerpts from Horace, Cicero, and others throughout his diaries and letters. Later in his life (1803), he wrote:

    Quote

    I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkeable of the antient philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate: say of Pythagoras, Epicurus, Epictetus, Socrates, Cicero, Seneca, Antoninus. I should do justice to the branches of morality they have treated well but point out the importance of those in which they are deficient. (emphasis added)

    Granted, his letter to Short was in 1819, so *maybe* his affinity toward Epicurus grew since 1803. BUT, as Kalosyni 's link shows, he was saying things like this in 1823:

    Quote

    "[T]he truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words."

    He as still defending Jesus against his "greatest enemies" and was not fully committed in any way to an Epicurean path.


    For reference, here is a link to the National Archives collection of Jefferson's papers where the term epicur* occurs (i.e., Epicure, Epicurean, Epicurus, etc.):

    Founders Online: Search
    founders.archives.gov

    and simply epicurean

    https://founders.archives.gov/…picurean&s=1511211111&r=1 (includes Short letter)

    and here are Short's letters to Jefferson:

    Founders Online: Search
    founders.archives.gov

    I would not at all defend Jefferson as an Orthodox Epicurean, but I also take articles like that less seriously than I do Jeffersons own letters which I collect at http://www.newepicurean.com/Jefferson


    He was primarily a politician and was not very straightforward in reconciling his public and private statements.


    In my view he serves mainly as a rather transparent way of "legitimizing" those of us who hold Epicurean views yet still want to move somewhat in traditional society. For someone who has no need to do that there's no need to spend much time with Jefferson.


    Running a forum on ideas as revolutionary Epicurus while also keeping the lights on can be a tricky business!


    As I said in a private exchange recently, I think we are probably more in a 'John the Baptist' stage of preparing the way for the real Epicurean world revolution, than we are the front line revolutionaries ourselves. :)


    So when the time comes for the next Epicurus to arise I won't be at all surprised no matter how much or how little time he or she spends with Jefferson.

    Quote from Don

    I have any number of problems with Thomas Jefferson and remain ambivalent with regards to him. He's never been one of my favorite Founders (I'm more a Franklin fan). I've also never been entirely comfortable with his image being in the header to this forum, but that is entirely Cassius 's call.


    For some reason I woke up thinking about this today and this comment comes to mind:


    Although I am not interested in seeing us "play to the crowd," most of us live and work among people who are almost exclusively non-Epicurean, and know little about Epicurus.


    At some point it becomes a logical and reasonable question for them to ask:


    "I've never really heard of Epicurus, or anyone who said that they were Epicurean. Those views you are talking about sound pretty underground to me and actually bordering on evil. Of course I know you and I like you, but can you name me one reputable person over the last three hundred years who has labelled themselves an Epicurean? Hopefully you can name more than one obscure name, but if you can't, maybe we better talk about getting you some medical help. I know this great counselor who specializes in Dialectical Behavior Therapy!"


    My comment to that:


    I've heard people suggest names like Christopher Hitchens and all sorts of people who have said one or two good things about Epicurus, but there are very few who come anywhere close to embracing his entire philosophy, much less actually committed to writing "I too am an Epicurean."


    I think this is a legitimate conversation topic with the outside world, so I think we need to work on our response. I know Nate has produced a very good list of historical Epicureans, and I think Don has done something similar in terms of a time frame or time line analysis.


    I will start a new thread and link to those two sets of materials and let's see what we can do to expand this.


    Let's continue this part of this thread in the new location: Historical References on the School of Epicurean Philosophy - Ancient World To Today

    Regarding the fear that "non-Epicureans" will misperceive us, and will say to us:

    Quote from Cassius

    Those views you are talking about sound pretty underground to me and actually bordering on evil.

    This idea is something that needs to be "unpacked"...the fear that others will see Epicureans as evil. And it means we have more work to do, since there is a clear moral understanding within Epicureanism, which is that causing harm to others will most often result in less pleasure for ourselves and for those we love, as well as much more pain in the long-term. And so we act according to ethical values just like everyone else, however the understanding of "why" and "how" is slightly different.

    Christianity is the source of the modern twisted concept of "evil". Otherwise we would simply say "causing harm". Is there a thread comparing Epicureanism with Christianity?

    Epicureans have been unpacking this for 2000+ years


    Lucretius Book One:


    Brown:

    [80] But in these things, I fear, you will suspect you are learning impious rudiments of reason, and entering in a road of wickedness. So, far from this, reflect what sad flagitious deeds Religion has produced. By her inspired, the Grecian chiefs, the first of men, at Aulis, Diana’s altar shamefully defiled with Iphigenia’s blood; her virgin hair a fillet bound, which hung in equal length on either side of her face. She saw her father, covered with sorrow, stand before the altar; for pity to his grief the butchering priests concealed the knife. The city, at the sight, overflowed with tears; the virgin, dumb with fear; fell low upon her knees on the hard Earth; in vain the wretched princess in distress pleaded that she first gave the honored name of Father to the King; but hurried off, and dragged by wicked hands, she, trembling, stood before the altar. Alas! not as a virgin, the solemn forms being duly done, drawn with pleasing force to Hymen’s noble rites, but a chaste maid, just ripe for nuptial joy, falls a sad victim, by a father’s hand, only to beg a kind propitious gale for Grecian ships. Such Scenes of villainy Religion could inspire!


    Humphries:

    I fear that, in these matters, you may think

    You're entering upon a path of crime,

    The A B C's of godlessness. Not so.

    The opposite is true. Too many times

    Religion mothers crime and wickedness.

    Recall how once at Aulis, when the Greeks,

    Those chosen peers, the very first of men,

    Defiled, with a girl's blood, the altar-stone

    Sacred to Artemis. The princess stood

    Wearing the sacred fillets or a veil,

    And sensed but could not see the king her father,

    Agamemnon, standing sorrowful

    Beside the altar, and the priests near-by

    Hiding the knife-blade, and the folk in tears

    At what they saw. She knelt, she spoke no word,

    She was afraid, poor thing. Much good it did her

    At such a time to have been the very first

    To give the king that other title, Father!

    Raised by men's hands and trembling she was led

    Toward the altar, not to join in song

    After the ritual of sacrifice

    To the bright god of marriage. No; she fell

    A victim by the sacrificing stroke

    Her father gave, to shed her virgin blood-

    Not the way virgins shed it - but in death,

    To bring the fleet a happy exodus!

    A mighty counselor, Religion stood

    With all that power for wickedness.

    A further comment in regard to:

    Quote from Cassius

    But in these things, I fear, you will suspect you are learning impious rudiments of reason, and entering in a road of wickedness. So, far from this, reflect what sad flagitious deeds Religion has produced. By her inspired, the Grecian chiefs, the first of men, at Aulis, Diana’s altar shamefully defiled with Iphigenia’s blood;

    A new definition of "evil":


    Evil is not only the harmful or hurtful act itself, but the "unreasonable" justification of the harm or injury by those commiting the act, and/or the unreasonable justification by those who are in the same tribe and/or who believe they benefit from the act.

    There's a lot to talk about in that post, probably starting with the basic issue of whether "good" and "evil" have an absolute existence in themselves, or are entirely relative.


    There's also the issue of the relationship of pleasure to good and pain as evil.


    We've talked about some of these before and we can do this here or in the older threads. It's possible we'll split this out after we talk a while too.

    But here are the two older categories where we explored these issues:


    The Relationship Of Pleasure To "Good" And The "Highest Good"


    The Relationship of Pain To "Evil"


    (The latter link is new)

    Ok massive reordering of Ethics forums to put these near the top:


    The Relationship of Pleasure and The Highest Good (And Is Pleasure the "Only Good"?)

    The Relationship of Pleasure To Absence of Pain And Disturbance

    The Relationship Of Pleasure To "Good" And Pain To "Evil"

    Types of Pleasures - Discussion of Specific Pleasures of All Kinds

    The Relationship of Pleasure To Virtue


    Emotions In Epicurean Philosophy

    Quote from Matt

    Ah yes Good vs. Evil and whether they exist as absolutes…the great debate.


    It seems to me that despite the emotion involved, the largest part of this question is "definitional" and even "logical" so probably every time it's discussed with newer people, it needs to be hit home that there can be a lot of emotion and personal attachment involved in discussing this. Right Don? ;)

    I could go very deep into this subject.


    I wonder if “logic” could ever play into this at all? Since the subject matter is entirely subjective and cultural. Without absolutes or or metaphysical evil, this would make for a very good discussion.


    But probably “user” beware, because this line of discussion could get intense quick.

    Logic in the sense of parsing definitions and categories. It's largely a word game until you connect back to emotions / pain / pleasure.


    But that too begs the question between whether there is any "natural" connection between words and perceptions, and for that we might have to call in Godfrey and Don on visualization issues :)

    Right, and honestly I suspect we will determine that broadly “evil” will ultimately be reduced to a subjective thing that is more in line with something that is culturally “unlawful” or “taboo” as opposed to giving any concrete absolutes that could universally be considered “wrong” in every place and every time.

    I thought I remembered a line in "A Few Days In Athens" where Epicurus said that there was no good but pleasure, and no evil but pain, but so far the nearest I can find is this in chapter three in regard to virtue. This is related, but not quite as direct. Of course Frances Wright is not really to be accepted as an authority on Epicurus' position, but her views are always interesting: