Posts by Eikadistes

Quote from shahabgh66

But sometimes names and their connotations catch my eyes

I think you're on to something here, shahabgh66 in terms of what I want to call a sort of convergent evolution of linguistics. There is a universal need to define spiritual concepts, and the ways we wield language lead to symbols that converges upon common metaphors.

For example, prior to their adoption of Χριστιανός (Khristianós or "Christian"), worshippers of the Christ simply referred to themselves as followers of της οδου (tês hodoû) or “The Way“. Thousands of miles away, separated by centuries, a group of ancient Chinese philosophers, alchemists, and mystics followed the universal 道 or (Dào”) meaning “road”, “path” or “Way”.

There are other examples (such as identifying "God", literally, with "Wisdom")

There is an interesting study done on the development of words referring to color (as an example). The study was published in a book by Brent Berlin and Paul Kay called Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution (1969). Essentially, they demonstrate that isolated groups of humans will develop words for color in a predictable pattern: cultures with only two color words only had words for "bright" and "dark". With third word, it is always "red" (etc.).

In that same way, I think (in the development of language), different groups of humans are compelled by psychological needs to express certain, universal experiences, like the experience of dreaming, of being intoxicated, or experiencing necrosis, or witnessing others' deaths.

Along those lines, as Epicurus recognizes in KD5 and KD6, the structures of society, leadership roles and economic exchanges, develop naturally out of a common benefit. Therein, different groups of peoples exalt admirable, magnificent figures characterized as being "helpers".

We all have some word for "soul", and that word always seems to correlate concepts like "personality", "awareness", "will", and "the part of us that's 'awake' when we dream at night". We (apparently) have a common need to express "spirituality", and that word always seems to correlate concepts like "psychology", "self-help", "art", "meditation", and "the need to organize mental phenomenon during times of over-stimulation". There are many other examples.

While the particular characteristics of the words differ depending on the filter of culture, there seem to be universal, pre-conceptual notions that we are compelled to identify by need. The common notion of "the religious experience", of "the divine nature", or "the gods" falls in this category as a universal experience that isolated peoples share.

In this regard, I suppose that the archetype of a "savior", a "guru", or a "helper" might be one such common notion, instigated by a universal need to express the experience of a "spiritual guide". We all have personal role models, and groups of us have universal saviors.

Philodemos provides a number of examples of deductive reasoning in On Methods of Inference [https://twentiers.com/on-signs/] and seems to negate inductive reasoning:

He suggests that the following deduction is valid:

‘Since the men in our experience, in so far as and according
as they are men, are mortal,
‘Men everywhere are mortal,’

Whereas the following inductive assumption is invalid:

‘Since men in our experience are mortal,
‘Men everywhere are mortal,’

As Philodemos writes, "the analogical method of inference is not cogent; and on the whole if it is cogent, it must assume that unperceived objects are like those in our experience.”

However, he later asserts that "it will be sufficient for us to base our belief on probability in these matters, just as we do in regard to what is learned from trial; for example, that we shall be safe sailing in summer, since we have had experience of favorable winds in that season." If I'm reading that right, he seems to be saying that inductive reasoning tends to be inaccurate; however, it is at least functional, and, anticipating Pragmatists like William James, we can consider it true (enough).

I'll need to go back to the original Greek to identify the named methods of inference, because he seems to either accept or reject "argument from analogy", depending on the context: As he writes, "if anyone uses the argument from analogy properly, he will not fail, and we consider that our statement is true", whereas, he earlier states"the analogical method of inference is not cogent".

I find the text to be challenging, but, ultimately, it seems to me that Philodemos is providing us with examples of functional methods of inference that are not necessarily definite, only probable. Ultimately, it is up to our sensations to provide evidence to justify any given proposition.

Quote from Godfrey

So if I'm reading correctly Eikadistes , you're saying that "amount" isn't a part of the original Greek? Am I understanding that correctly?

Within the context of Userner/Arrighetti's renderings, I believe that is correct. I do not find an ancient Greek noun that corresponds with our noun "amount". The word being employed ἴσην (ísēn) is an adjective meaning "equal" or "the same as". The noun that the adjective is modifying is "pleasure", so adding a second noun to that clause (in my opinion) is semantically unnecessary.

Though, again, I don't mean to make too big of a deal out of it. It's mostly stylistic.

Quote from Cassius

the thread topic question, as to substituting "pain" in the place of "pleasure,"

Cassiusthis isn't clear. Your post quotes the Doxa in its entirety: "Would Epicurus say: 'Infinite Time contains no more pain than limited time when the limit of pain is measured by reason?'"

Quote from Cassius

but if you could also comment on whether it works to substitute pain, that would be good too.

My answer therefore changes from "No-ish" to a confident "No". "No more pain" is not the same as "continuous pleasure" because "no more pain" also includes "death", and that's no good. This is where we dodge the Cyrenaics accusation that our goal in life is that of a corpse.

No-ish, but only over a few stylistic caveats in translation:

Usener and/or Arrighetti transcribe (what I read as) the reflexive pronoun αὐτῆς (autês), which is a feminine declension of αὐτός (autós). In my translation, I came up with the following:

“Unlimited time contains the same pleasure as that which is limited, if a person herself measures the limits by reason.”

While I usually prefer to employ gender-neutral language (for example, preferring "Sage" to "Wise Man"), I note that Epicurus sometimes employs feminine declensions of words, and where he does, I think it is important to give it its due. (For example, throughout the Epistle to Pythokles, unlike the other letters, Epicurus refers to "the gods" (theon) in the feminine theia or "divine [nature]".)

(I'm also seeing autês as specifying the other, general pronoun τις meaning "someone", "who", "one", or "a person" ... though it may actually be describing or reinforcing something else.)

We also find the adjective ἴσην (ísēn), the feminine, accusative singular of of ῐ̓́σος (ísos) which indicates that which is "equal" or "the same". Translating "no greater than" (even in a mathematical sense) does not express the same thing, but carries a slightly different connotation

With this in mind, I think that the sentence is comparing two instances of maximum sustained states of pleasure. Contextually, we are discussing two πέρατα (pérata) or "limits" of pleasure), one lasting less than 125 years, and one lasting forever [i.e. the pleasure of the gods]. Here is another instance, like KD1, of Epicurus mentioning a "god" without ever using the word for "god".)

It's a small caveat, but it does slightly change the meaning. For me, it indicates that our lives are not diminished due to the fact that we are not immortal. Achieving the goal of life is not reserved for godlike person; we can all enjoy the universal goal toward which all life is directed.

Stylistically, I also note that ἡδονήν (hēdonḗn) is only used once by Epicurus in the original Greek. That is just an aesthetic choice, and does not affect the semantics of the sentence.

Quote from Don

I also think it's important to disregard the PD numbers.

Always this.

Quote from Bryan

You really have made a beautiful website. It is very well organized, and it is filled only with treasures.

Thank you for that!

All treasures to share.

Quote from Bryan

Does using Epíkouros add another layer of complexity, or does it get us closer to source?

You're reading my mind, because I go back-and-forth on how I'd like to identify each historical figure. One on hand, the Latinized names of figures (like Athenaeus) are more recognizable, and that recognition can be helpful to students (versus seeing "Athenaios"). At the same time, as with Loukianos, I want to steer students away from pronunciations like Lucian /'luːsiːən/ that have been historically Latinized; but with our source material and access to ancient sources, that seems like an unnecessary step, so I push away from /miːno.'iːsiːəs/ toward /mɛː'nɔɪ.ke.uːs/ for example. In the case of Epíkouros, I go back-and-forth. In each case, I try to provide both options somewhere on the site.

The proverbial spirit has moved me, so I have included critical selections from Athenaeus, Eusebius, and Lactantius that reference Epicurus and his philosophy.

I added a number of critical authors to the website, including Cicero, Seneca, Sextus Empiricus, and several works of Plutarch (here is Against Colotes, among others: https://twentiers.com/colotes/)

Quote from Cassius

In the case of gods we are talking about a wide class that could have very many forms, so long as those forms are consistent with blessedness and imperishability. In the case of "centaurs" that's an assertion of a very specific physical formation that conflicts with our long experience with both humans and horses.

Good point; let me be more general.

Let's use the example of "demons" (as a class). How do I know that the notion of "the gods" is an authentic preconception whereas that the notion of a "demon" is a false belief? For example, what if I were to posit that I have experienced a prolepsis of a being "with a permanent lack of pleasure" and I assign to that prolepsis the word "demon", as a class of perfectly-pleasureless beings?

Here's another way I might approach the question for my own understanding:

How do I know that "the gods" in "dreams" are more real than centaurs and cyclops?

I thought about this and wanted to see what the herd thinks:

Epicurus explicitly warns against pursuing a political career, but does add a caveat that one might pursue a political career if they are so compelled by their natural disposition. Similarly, Epicurus advises against romantic exploits, but stops short of explicitly prohibiting them, so long as they do not cause turmoil. Similarly, in the Epistle to Menoikeus, Epicurus clearly recommends that we should believe in a god and pray faithfully... I wonder, like sex and politics if Epicurus would allow for anti-religious students to abstain from prayer if they are so inclined by their natural disposition?

Quote from Julia

There are no outside persons inside my mind like that, so I would not expect to at some point have an experience of this kind. For me, death was different every time:

It was terror and fright.

It was despair and frantic effort.

It was abandonment and sadness.

It was erratic chaos and powerlessness.

It was relief and release in death by a thousand cuts.

[...]

And with that little opening speech, I circle back to the gods: I don't think near-death experiences are very consistent, and I think they very much depend on who you ask and what they've experienced: pharmaceuticals, social context, age (especially child vs teenager/adult), type of survival situation, cultural backdrop. With the experiences so different, can we really conceive of them as to "pertaining to gods"? [...]

Display More

These are all good points, and to reinforce @Root304 's observation, psychedelics are inconsistent and potential causes of more pain than pleasure. Additionally, all of this is dependent on our internal ecosystems, so reliably re-producing the experience of the divine is not universal with any one substance ... still, I can't identify with "the experience of the divine" without drugs.

That's just where I'm at with my personal experience. I've never seen blissful people in dreams that do not correspond with mortals that I have met in my life. (But I'd really like to!)

Right now, at best, as far as I can determine, (1) Epicurus said that the gods were evident because he became aware that Indians prayed to gods but separate from the Greeks (via Pyrrho through Nausiphanes), (2) His suggestion that piety comes from dreams is just a general way of saying "religion is social construct that evolved from basic human behaviors", (3) Hermarkhos, Demetrios, Philodemos, and Lucretius making indications that the gods breathe and converse is not a preconception, but inductive reasoning that happens to be coherent with the preconception, and (4) the actual gods don't really exist except as concepts in our minds.

Eh, I don't know. I really want to dream about Zeus once and put an end to it.

Quote from Root304

Eh... My foray into psychedelics was pretty disasterous and almost entirely led to my adoption of Naturalism and Epicureanism.

I definitely don't mean to frame psychedelics as a panacea or a purely positive experience. Set, setting, and mental disposition (especially mental illness) can turn a trip into a miserable hell.

That said, I'm just speaking for myself ... I personally was unable to conceive of "the divine" until I ate mushrooms at age 19. Up until that moment in time, my personal opinion was that "God" was a delusion, "believers" were deluded, and "spirituality" was an empty word for the deluded. I rejected the "religious experience" as a dangerous hallucination, if it existed at all.

The possibility of having dreams in a wakeful state changed that for me.

Still, if I'm being honest, when it comes down to it, I'm still an atheist at heart.

I really just continue to wonder (thus, the source of this thread)...

"... how in the Hell can anyone *actually* believe in gods?"

Epicurean theology was something that never jived with me from the very being. Let's just get rid of the gods altogether. Fuck 'em, right? Who cares? Obviously Epicurus taught the opposite, but I really want to get in his head and understand why it matters at all if psychedelics aren't involved.

I had a lot of dreams, but never the form of a perfect humanoid that inspired me.

I'm just trying to get in the mind of someone who actually believes with confidence.

If you guys aren't careful, this is going to turn into an essay.

I had a few other thoughts I wanted to share about my own bias(es):

1. I live in an "photo-centric" era. Images and icons are everywhere. I know the faces of people who died before I was born. I know the faces of people who died before my society developed. I know the face of Epicurus, himself, down to his cheekbones. But ancient Greeks, in terms of realistic representative art, were limited to statues, and they were usually either civic or mythological. Most grandkids did not have busts of their beloved grandma and grandpa on their mantle. To spontaneously witness the form of a 20-something friend during "dream-states" at various points in one's life would have been much more significant to a non-"photo-centric" world.

2. I live in a prohibitionary era with regards to psychedelics. Most of us do, and most of the modern world is characterized by prohibition in some form at some time, albeit trying to demonize Gin in medieval England, to American zealots trying to ban Peyote ceremonies from native rituals. The suspicion of psychedelic chemicals is ubiquitous, and is utterly prohibited from children to the extent that we attempt to censor information. The point is, the average ancient Greek was not exposed to "Reefer Madness" and "Just Say 'No'" and would have seen been more likely to associate religion with the state of divine intoxication and the rituals used to induce it.

I am also struck by the correspondence between the religious experience and death. I have come to see ingestion of certain entheogens as a way for people to try to understand death by experiencing it. I had way too much nitrous oxide before/during a procedure, and I was absolutely sure I was going to permanently lose consciousness. Nonetheless, the experience was calming: life was what it was, what's left is what it is ... might as well smile. This is common with the ego death.

My wife brought up another interesting point as a consequence of her near-death experience. While on a soup of opiates, going through organ-failure, she very clearly witnessed the visual features of two, very important people from her past, who had both died under tragic circumstances. They both looked like they were at their prime (ageless) and they were perfectly blissful (happy), figures that, as she explained, ultimately provided her with comfort. Has anyone else experienced that?

Given that a potentially-psychedelic brew was ingested at the climax of a mystery cult, and it is written that he"is found to have taken part in all the traditional festivals and sacrifices. […] he says that he shared in all the festivals […] and that while he was joining in celebrating the festival of the Choes [at Anthesteria] and the urban mysteries [Attic Dionysia] | and the other festivals at a meagre dinner..." it would might been odd for him not to ingest kykeon.

If something like kykeon was ingested regularly, and kykeon can contain ergot, or potentially another psychoactive agent, then ... well, indeed, "knowledge of the gods" was "evident".

Julia I found one! Kykeon. I'm re-posting this directly from Wikipedia's article on the Eleusinian Mysteries [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusinia…ogenic_theories]

Quote

Entheogenic theories

Numerous scholars have proposed that the power of the Eleusinian Mysteries came from the kykeon's functioning as an entheogen, or psychedelic agent.^[9] The use of potions or philtres for magical or religious purposes was relatively common in Greece and the ancient world.^[80] The initiates, sensitized by their fast and prepared by preceding ceremonies (see set and setting), may have been propelled by the effects of a powerful psychoactive potion into revelatory mind states with profound spiritual and intellectual ramifications.^[81] In opposition to this idea, skeptical scholars note the lack of any solid evidence and stress the collective rather than individual character of initiation into the Mysteries.^[82]

Many psychoactive agents have been proposed as the significant element of kykeon, though without consensus or conclusive evidence. These include the ergot species Claviceps paspali [fr],^[9] a fungal parasite of paspalum, which contains the alkaloids ergotamine, a precursor to LSD, and ergonovine.^[81][83] However, modern attempts to prepare a kykeon using ergot-parasitized barley have yielded inconclusive results, though Alexander Shulgin and Ann Shulgin describe both ergonovine and LSA to be known to produce LSD-like effects.

Discovery of fragments of ergot (fungi containing LSD-like psychedelic alkaloids) in a temple dedicated to the two Eleusinian Goddesses excavated at the Mas Castellar site (Girona, Spain) provided some legitimacy for this theory. Ergot fragments were found inside a vase and within the dental calculus of a 25-year-old man, providing evidence of ergot being consumed. This finding seems to support the hypothesis of ergot as an ingredient of the Eleusinian kykeon.

Psychoactive mushrooms are another candidate. Scholars such as Robert Graves and Terence McKenna, speculated that the mysteries were focused around a variety of Psilocybe. Other entheogenic fungi, such as Amanita muscaria, have also been suggested. A recent hypothesis suggests that the ancient Egyptians cultivated Psilocybe cubensis on barley and associated it with the deity Osiris.

Another candidate for the psychoactive drug is an opioid derived from the poppy. The cult of the goddess Demeter may have brought the poppy from Crete to Eleusis; it is certain that opium was produced in Crete.

Another theory is that the psychoactive agent in kykeon is DMT, which occurs in many wild plants of the Mediterranean, including Phalaris and/or Acacia. To be active orally (like in ayahuasca) it must be combined with a monoamine oxidase inhibitor such as Syrian rue (Peganum harmala), which grows throughout the Mediterranean.

Alternatively, J. Nigro Sansonese (1994), using the mythography supplied by Mylonas, hypothesizes that the Mysteries of Eleusis were a series of practical initiations into trance involving proprioception of the human nervous system induced by breath control (similar to samyama in yoga).^[92] Sansonese speculates that the kisté, a box holding sacred objects opened by the hierophant, is actually an esoteric reference to the initiate's skull, within which is seen a sacred light and are heard sacred sounds, but only afterinstruction in trance practice. Similarly, the seed-filled chambers of a pomegranate, a fruit associated with the founding of the cult, esoterically describe proprioception of the initiate's heart during trance.

Display More

Quote from Julia

Quote from Twentier

Here's (above) an image that depicts (to me) the gods

Off topic, just curious: Did ancient Epicureans use mind-altering substances (other than alcohol), as the painting suggests?

It's definitely on-topic, and it is primarily supported right now by (1) a total projection based on my anecdotal experiences as an atheist who ate mushrooms and had experienced what seemed so clearly to me to be The Religious Experience that is described in many traditions, and (2) a totally circumstantial supposition based on the fact that surrounding groups of non-Greek peoples were using psycho-active substances, such as the Scythians use of cannabis.

We know that Epicurus took part in the Dionysian and Eleusian mysteries, which most definitely involved wine, as you mentioned, but anything else, at this point, I think, is a stretch.

Still ... I'm stretching, because the Epicurean gods jive with my self-induced psychedelic experiences more than they are cohering to any one animalistic conception I've tried to formulate. I'm really open to image others like that reflect qualities of how they imagine the divine nature.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Twentier

How can a blessed quasi-animal always have existed?

I tend to think that their answer there would have been that gods "as a kind" have always existed as a part of natural processes leading to that result, but that gods as individuals have not existed forever

This is a great point! I hadn't considered this.

We need to check the original language.

Hermarkhos, Philodemos, and Lucretius tease us with their speculations about the characteristics of the gods, and therein set a precedent among Epicureans to wonder about their form...

I think Demetrios of Lakon wrote a book entitled On the Form of the Gods (is that right?)

Even so, I wonder if the best way to think of the gods is primarily as a pure mental impression, (regardless of the corresponding atomoi that left said impressions.) Excuse some of the idealistic implications of the follow image by Alex Grey, but I feel like this brings together a few elements that I think are key to Epicurean gods: mental experiences, usually in dream-states (...drug-induced?), of divine quasi-humans, and the assigning of names to the category of the divine quasi-humans.

Just some more food for thought. Here's (above) an image that depicts (to me) the gods primarily as mental concepts, rather than as physical object to which mental concepts corresponds.