Posts by Matt

“NO ATOMIC AGGREGATION COULD PRODUCE A SELF-HARMONIZING UNITY.

3. (b.) (No aggregation of atoms could form a whole that would be one and sympathetic with itself.) Others, on the contrary, insist that the soul is constituted by the union of atoms or indivisibles (as thought Leucippus, Democritus and Epicurus.41) To refute this error, we have to examine the nature of sympathy (or community of affection, a Stoic characteristic of a living being,42) and juxtaposition.43 On the one hand an aggregation of corporeal molecules which are incapable of being united, and which do not feel cannot form a single sympathetic whole such as is the soul, which is sympathetic with herself. On the other hand, how could a body or extension be constituted by (a juxtaposition of) atoms?”

“STOIC AND EPICUREAN CAUSELESS ORIGIN REALLY THE UTMOST DETERMINISM.

Now among the things that become, or among those that although perpetually existent do not always result in the same actions, it may be boldly asserted that everything has a cause. We should not admit (the Stoic contention99) that something happens without a cause, nor accept the (Epicurean100) arbitrary convergence of the atoms, nor believe that any body initiates a movement suddenly and without determining reason, nor suppose (with Epicurus again101) that the soul undertakes some action by a blind impulse, without any motive. Thus to suppose that a thing does not belong to itself, that it could be carried away by involuntary movements, and act without motive, would be to subject it to the most crushing determinism. The will must be excited, or the desire awakened by some interior or exterior stimulus. No determination (is possible) without motive.”

“MATERIALISTS SUPPORT DETERMINISM.

Those sages who (like Leucippus, Democritus and Epicurus) assumed material principles such as the atoms, and who explain everything by their motion, their shock and combinations, pretend that everything existent and occurring is caused by the agency of these atoms, their "actions and reactions." This includes, according to them, our appetites and dispositions. The necessity residing in the nature of these principles, and in their effects, is therefore, by these sages, extended to everything that exists. As to the (Ionic Hylicists), who assume other physical (ultimate) principles, referring everything to them, they thus also subject all beings to necessity.”

“THE PHYSICAL THEORIES ARE ABSURD.

3. To refer everything to physical causes, whether you call them atoms or elements, and from their disordered motion to deduce order, reason and the soul that directs (the body), is absurd and impossible; nevertheless, to deduce everything from atoms, is, if possible, still more impossible; and consequently many valid objections have been raised against this theory.”

“THE STOIC POLEMIC AGAINST THE EPICUREANS.

To begin with, even if we do admit such atomic principles, their existence does not in any way inevitably lead to either the necessity of all things, or fatality. Let us, indeed, grant the existence of atoms; now some will move downwards—that is, if there is an up and down in the universe—others obliquely, by chance, in various directions. As there will be no order, there will be nothing determinate. Only what will be born of the atoms will be determinate. It will therefore be impossible to guess or predict events, whether by art—and indeed, how could there be any art in the midst of orderless things?—or by enthusiasm, or divine inspiration; for prediction implies that the future is determined. True, bodies will obey the impulses necessarily communicated to them by the atoms; but how could you explain the operations and affections of the soul by movements of atoms? How could atomic shock, whether vertical or oblique, produce in the soul these our reasonings, or appetites, whether necessarily, or in any other way? What explanation could they give of the soul's resistance to the impulsions of the body?”

“EPICURUS TAUGHT CHANCE AND THE GNOSTICS AN EVIL CREATOR.

1. When Epicurus21 derives the existence and constitution of the universe from automatism and chance, he commits an absurdity, and stultifies himself. That is self-evident, though the matter have elsewhere been thoroughly demonstrated.22 But (if the world do not owe its origin to chance) we will be compelled to furnish an adequate reason for the existence and creation of all these beings. This (teleological) question deserves the most careful consideration. Things that seem evil do indeed exist, and they do suggest doubts about universal Providence; so that some (like Epicurus23) insist there is no providence, while others (like the Gnostics24), hold that the demiurgic creator is evil. The subject, therefore, demands thorough investigation of its first principles.

PARTICULAR AND UNIVERSAL PROVIDENCE ASSUMED AS PREMISES.

Let us leave aside this individual providence, which consists in deliberating before an action, and in examining whether we should or should not do something, or whether we should give or not give it. We shall also assume the existence of the universal Providence, and from this principle we shall deduce the consequences.

Excerpt From

Plotinos: Complete Works, v. 4 / In Chronological Order, Grouped in Four Periods

Plotinus

This material may be protected by copyright.

One main category is good! Just like you have it now.

That way you can keep religion and philosophy under the same heading.

Title: Epicurus and Epicurean Philosophy Referenced in the New Testament

That could be the catch all title.

“Creation.II

II. (7) For some men, admiring the world itself rather than the Creator of the world, have represented it as existing without any maker, and eternal; and as impiously as falsely have represented God as existing in a state of complete inactivity, while it would have been right on the other hand to marvel at the might of God as the creator and father of all, and to admire the world in a degree not exceeding the bounds of moderation.”

Excerpt From

The Works of Philo Judaeus

Philo Judaeus

In reference to Venus/Aphrodite, it’s interesting that certain goddesses across cultures became associated with erotic love. The best example of a goddess that epitomizes erotic love and fertility and even war is Inanna/Ishtar. She’s like a cross between Greek, Roman and Hindu equivalents. Both the goddess of erotic love and fertility and a hostile war goddess.

The one thing I learned from Gilgamesh is to never reject a goddess’s advances. Or you’ll get the bull of heaven sent after you.?

Under the Physics heading I started a thread with a link to Hesiod’s Theogony. I thought it might be fun to explore the myths that make up the old Hellenic religion and how they relate to other Near Eastern Myths.

As much as I love philosophy, I also love the myths and how they are historically significant in shaping culture and religion.

This can dovetail into why perhaps Epicurus viewed the gods the way he did.

Some similarities to other myths to discuss:

-The castration of Uranus and Hittite Myth

-Deucalion and the Deluge (Noah, Utnapishtim, Ziusudra)

-Typhoeus and Zeus battle versus Lotan and Baal, Leviathan and El.

-Prometheus and Oannes

I figure that if there are to be detailed discussions on the gods that Hesiod’s famous work should be consulted and available.

The Greek version of a “Cosmogony” and “Theogony” the poet Hesiod borrowed heavily from the legendary stories of Mesopotamia to create this poem.

https://www.theoi.com/Text/HesiodTheogony.html

So basically it is a tendon repair. I had a running accident back in 2016 that caused me to have some nerve damage. Because the nerve never came back online it caused a tendon to cease functioning. So I waited a couple of years to see if it would and it didn’t. So basically it is a rerouting if existing tendons in my ankle and foot. I had 2 nerve blocks that wore off the night after surgery and now I know what a bear trap feels like!

I did! I had my surgery on Wednesday. So I now have all sorts of time to explore the forum here.

I’m scanning through the Ante-Nicene Fathers to see where Epicurus is mentioned.

Lactantius has the longest detailed attack. But a quick survey of some of the others yields some minor attacks scattered throughout.

Of the early Fathers, Lactantius has the most detailed attack on Epicurean philosophy. However Clement, Theophilus,Tertullian and Tatian also attack Epicurus on a smaller scale in their works.

Philo of Alexandra, does not explicitly attack Epicurus other than to say that those who proclaim that there is no providence and those who worship the creation rather than the creator err in their doctrines.

Plotinus mentions Epicurus only once during his attack on the Gnostics.

“Chapter 4.— Of God and His Affections, and the Censure of Epicurus.

That which follows is concerning the school of Epicurus; that as there is no anger in God, so indeed there is no kindness. For when Epicurus thought that it was inconsistent with God to injure and to inflict harm, which for the most part arises from the affection of anger, he took away from Him beneficence also, since he saw that it followed that if God has anger, He must also have kindness. Therefore, lest he should concede to Him a vice, he deprived Him also of virtue. From this, he says, He is happy and uncorrupted, because He cares about nothing, and neither takes trouble Himself nor occasions it to another. Therefore He is not God, if He is neither moved, which is peculiar to a living being, nor does anything impossible for man, which is peculiar to God, if He has no will at all, no action, in short, no administration, which is worthy of God. And what greater, what more worthy administration can be attributed to God, than the government of the world, and especially of the human race, to which all earthly things are subject?

What happiness, then, can there be in God, if He is always inactive, being at rest and unmoveable? If He is deaf to those who pray to Him, and blind to His worshippers? What is so worthy of God, and so befitting to Him, as providence? But if He cares for nothing, and foresees nothing, He has lost all His divinity. What else does he say, who takes from God all power and all substance, except that there is no God at all? In short, Marcus Tullius relates that it was said by Posidonius, that Epicurus understood that there were no gods, but that he said those things which he spoke respecting the gods for the sake of driving away odium; and so that he leaves the gods in words, but takes them away in reality, since he gives them no motion, no office. But if this is so, what can be more deceitful than him? And this ought to be foreign to the character of a wise and weighty man. But if he understood one thing and spoke another, what else is he to be called than a deceiver, double-tongued, wicked, and moreover foolish? But Epicurus was not so crafty as to say those things with the desire of deceiving, when he consigned these things also by his writings to everlasting remembrance; but he erred through ignorance of the truth. For, being led from the beginning by the probability of a single opinion, he necessarily fell into those things which followed. For the first opinion was, that anger was not consistent with the character of God. And when this appeared to him to be true and unassailable, he was unable to refuse the consequences; because one affection being removed, necessity itself compelled him to remove from God the other affections also. Thus, he who is not subject to anger is plainly uninfluenced by kindness, which is the opposite feeling to anger. Now, if there is neither anger nor kindness in Him, it is manifest that there is neither fear, nor joy, nor grief, nor pity. For all the affections have one system, one motion, which cannot be the case with God. But if there is no affection in God, because whatever is subject to affections is weak, it follows that there is in Him neither the care of anything, nor providence.

The disputation of the wise man extends thus far: he was silent as to the other things which follow; namely, that because there is in Him neither care nor providence, therefore there is no reflection nor any perception in Him, by which it is effected that He has no existence at all. Thus, when he had gradually descended, he remained on the last step, because he now saw the precipice. But what does it avail to have remained silent, and concealed the danger? Necessity compelled him even against his will to fall. For he said that which he did not mean, because he so arranged his argument that he necessarily came to that point which he wished to avoid. You see, therefore, to what point he comes, when anger is removed and taken away from God. In short, either no one believes that, or a very few, and they the guilty and the wicked, who hope for impunity for their sins. But if this also is found to be false, that there is neither anger nor kindness in God, let us come to that which is put in the third place.”

I think Chris Fisher is a top proponent of Traditional Stoicism in the US. His group is very small. He definitely criticizes the MoSto mainstream group.

I absolutely believe that the ancient Stoics would have been completely put off by the Modern group. I know there is a modern Traditional movement out there that attempts to reclaim the original philosophy by keeping the original doctrines intact, but it is a far smaller group.

It’s an interesting position most Modern Stoics take. I’ve asked them in the past how it all works within their tailored system and the answer always comes off as a jumble.

If you were to ask me what my main issue is with “MoStoicism” The answer would have to be the “virtue for the sake virtue” dilemma that appears throughout the Modern philosophy.

As opposed to a historical Traditional Stoicism, which is much closer to a theistic religion, many Modern Stoics tend to view their philosophy devoid of the trademark pantheistic Providence.

This is an ENORMOUS issue.

Why? Your virtue is your own.

Rather than virtue being dictated by a Universal standard, virtue becomes subjective and relative to the individual.

Self-denial and detachment to achieve Stoic sage-hood becomes entirely circular. Who says you are courageous? Who says you are just? Who says you are wise? You do. There is a piece missing from the equation.

According to many MoSto’s, there is no Providential mind and nothing further after death in this materialist universe. So what’s the point of virtue from this perspective?

Can you achieve ataraxia and aponia from self-derived virtue and mental detachment?

I would say no.

In an entirely non-providential universe, the Epicureans have it right. If there is no deity and no afterlife, then seeking pleasure would be highest good, because nothing else exists in its place. Modern Stoics, according to their own world view, are wasting time not seeking after pleasure as the highest good. They delude themselves by believing virtue has worth. But in reality virtue without providence is utterly worthless.

I would probably avoid Dante entirely! A trip into the mind of a masochist.

I think I summed up my position solely on the idea that a providential deity is the bare minimum for belief within Jewish and Christian thought. For even the Sadducees, who did not believe in an afterlife, believed at the very minimum that the God of Moses and the Law was a providential one.

But obviously as we move away from the bare minimum, the paths diverge further as we approach a disbelief in the afterlife, miracles etc.

But ultimately Dante was a man following the perceptions of the times. His Inferno has painted a picture of Hell that has unfortunately endured. Albeit, far from the Biblical account. Placing anyone in Hell is beyond any Christian’s authority IMO.

It is clear, in my opinion, that Epicurus was condemned entirely due to his position on a non-providential deity.

I don’t even think his hedonism was enough to cause such a condemnation, since even the Biblical narrative (especially the Hebrew Bible) endorsed material pleasure (within the scope of the Law). After all, the Israelites sought the land of Milk and Honey to increase and multiply in.

That does sound pretty pleasant.

It was the fact that his position on the gods flew in the face of a providential and active God. The one thing that is required in being a Jew or Christian, is to believe in that specific deity. This position could never be accepted by any theist that believed in a deity that had a purpose for life. Thus, he was condemned by Jewish and Christian commentators as one who has committed an unpardonable sin with his doctrine.

However....

Epicurus did not live in the time of Jesus. No Christian should condemn or judge him as though he is damned....they can judge his philosophy, but the man himself (and the state of his soul) accordingly would be off limits. As ALL people should be. Dante was without compassion and well out of his lane to prejudge.

I would say too this does not mean shirking ones civic duty to the detriment of ones self (such as avoiding ALL politics and not participating in governmental process like voting or rallying for an important cause for yourself). Such inactivity may lead to pains or regret if not prudently acted upon.

This is really a position of avoiding unnecessary exposure to the public eye. If it’s unnecessary it probably isn’t worth the exposure.