Posts by Eikadistes

• Don't you have to be rich to be an Epicurean?

  Not at all. The Notorious B.I.G. said, Mo Money, Mo Problems, and Epicurus would have agreed. As Lennon-McCartney wrote, "I don't care too much for money, 'cause money can't buy me love." And as Epicurus, himself wrote, "Poverty, when measured by the natural purpose of life, is great wealth, but unlimited wealth is great poverty" (VS 25).

• Epicureanism doesn't offer anything "positive" like Stoicism or Buddhism offers. What do you offer to compete with those?

  Epicurean Philosophy offers freedom. It champions choice and rejects fate. It liberates us from turmoil by rejecting superstition. It offers a worldview that recognizes friendship as the greatest pleasure in life, and also, our surest source of security.

• What if your life isn't "together" and you don't have time to read philosophy? Why would someone like that spending any time discussing Epicurus?

  There is no better time than now to prioritize the pursuit of happiness, "for no man can ever find the time unsuitable or too late to study the health of his soul." (Ep. Men. 122).

  Life can be excruciating sometimes, but to enjoy true happiness, "We must laugh and philosophize at the same time, and do our household duties, and employ our other faculties, and never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy." (VS 41).

• Why don't you ever discuss "meaningfulness" because I've been convinced that's what I should want out of life?

  The "purpose" or "goal" of life was of prime importance to Epicurus. As Lucretius recognized, "Mankind therefore ever toils vainly and to no purpose and wastes life in groundless cares because sure enough they have not learnt what is the true end of getting and up to what point genuine pleasure goes on increasing" (DRN V:1430).

  Your purpose is to live your best life (through the pursuit of pleasure).

• How do you expect me to understand Epicurus when he approaches so many things so differently than what I am familiar with at church or in the workplaces?

  You already understand Epicurus.

  When you wonder if it will rain, do you ask a Priest? Or a meteorologist?

  You already understand Epicurus.

  You believe in extra-terrestrial life?

  You definitely understand Epicurus.

  Do you like Science Fiction?

  It came from an Epicurean.

  You were required by society to embrace at least twelve years of a scientific education. If you remember any of Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics or Einstein's Theory of Relativity, there's a good chance your outlook is fundamentally Epicurean.

  If you believe in the pursuit of happiness and the importance of friendship, you already appreciate Epicurean Ethics. If you acknowledge that Swiss scientists are smashing atoms together, and that nuclear weapons exist, you already accept Epicurean Physics. If you listen to your belly when you're hungry, grab a blanket when you're cold, and take a nap when you're tired, you already practice Epicurean Epistemology.

Much happiness to you on this, the anniversary of your birth!

I just wanted to add to this thread two of my wife's reconstructions of Epicurus. She based those renderings on the attached picture I took of Epicurus' bust in the Vatican back in 2008.

"Live unknown."

At this point, this entire thread has been amusing and theoretically obtuse.

Epicureanism is my religion, and there's not a goddamn thing anyone can do about it.

Quote from DavidN

If gods are suppose to be perfect, at least epicurean gods. should you not look to epicureans utility of the gods for there utility towards perfection.

I meant to propose the same point: when I think of "perfect" in the context of Epicurean philosophy, the first thing that comes to mind is the blameless, incorruptible, divine nature, which is also an example of an existence that truly enjoys The Good, The Good that is pure pleasure.

Quote from Bryan

he perfect is not *always* attainable for us.

I recall Epicurus reinforcing this point about describing the exclusive categories of "gods" and "mortals", and emphasizing that the two cannot be the same. We can approximate the perfection of a god-like existence, but we are still mortals with health problems and we can only do our best.

These are good points that you both shared, and I think key to discussing Epicurean "perfection".

Quote from Cassius

Do we actually know that Darwin was either an explicit fan of, or quoted, Epicurus?

His grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was positively Lucretian in his allegiances. Charles seems to have adopted a number of Epicurean propositions from his grandfather, but he did not identify as an explicit Epicurean or Lucretian in the tradition of the Garden.

Quote from Godfrey

Relax.

This is always a welcome reminder.

Why are we so uncomfortable with words that Christians have appropriated?

Quote from Godfrey

Does spirituality imply a spirit separate from the body? Does it imply a god? Does it relate to one's mental well-being, without any supernatural implications?

Of course not. We're Epicureans. Why is this even an issue?

We're talking about a lot of this theoretically, as though Epicureanism isn't already the "spiritual essence or 'religion' of an entire community". It's happening. It's real. Did anyone miss the invitations?

You may not partake in "Epicureanism" as the "spiritual essence or 'religion' of an entire community" but it's happening. As a sub-culture, it is a sociological and anthropological phenomena that is real and can be addressed its modern, historical context in the English-speaking world (and the French, and Spanish, and Scandanavian, and Italian, and Iranian, from immediate contacts of mine).

I prefer my own. I host my own Garden. I compiled my own Testamentum. We do our own thing, and I float between virtual Gardens. Judge on if judging members of your own team is your thing.

Our tradition should have already sprouted, so let's water it. I'm focusing on cultivation.

Quote from Don

they

I am a formal member of the Society of Friends of Epicurus, so I am happy to elaborate on any points of interest that you, or any other member of this forum have. Furthermore, Hiram the Found of the Society of Friends of Epicurus is also a member, so we are available to be addressed in the first person. Though, I find it cute that you did not feel the need to do so. but I digress.

Quote from Peter Konstans

My view is that Epicurus' portrayal of the gods as part of the natural world was an elegant way to answer why the hell the whole of mankind believed and worshipped them. Even today we are not quite sure why people made up religion.

I identify with that perspective.

Hell, for that matter, so did Philodemus:

“...no one has been prolific in finding convincing demonstrations for the existences of the gods; nevertheless all men, with the exception of some madmen worship them, as do we...”

"...οὐδεὶς εἱκνουμένας περὶ τ[οὺ θ]εοὺς ὑπάρχε[ιν τἀς ἀπο]δείξεις εύπ[όρησ]εν· ὁμῶς δε [σέβ]ονται πάντε[ς εἱ μή παρ]άκοποί τινε[ς αὑτούς..." (On Piety, Col. 23, 13-17)

Quote from Peter Konstans

So modern scientists are almost universally atheist

Not quite. To my surprise, it's closer to half-and-half.

For example, nearly 40% of American chemists surveyed "believe in 'God'" according to a 2009 Pew Research poll [https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/…e%20this%20view]. In a more recent study, more "than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious" who largely do not see a conflict between religion and science [https://phys.org/news/2015-12-w…scientists.html].

(I'm not making a point, just sharing a discovery)

Quote from Peter Konstans

But then nobody has worked out a generally accepted scientific theory about how and why religion was developed by humans.

A textbook I still have from college called Supernatural as Natural: A Biocultural Approach To Religion (Winkelman and Baker 2010) provides a number of great approaches that are useful to objectively evaluate spiritual experiences and religious behaviors. It suggests that religiosity is rooted in ritualized animal behavior and altered states of consciousness. It then describes the ways that various social roles, norms, and cultural innovations developed from those neurobiological roots.

I think that a piece of ancient Epicurean Theology bears a striking resemblance to modern Anthropology of Religion, which you recognize later in your post:

Quote from Peter Konstans

But Epicurus had to find an answer in alignment with his own views about the nature of the universe (his cosmology), the nature of man (his anthropology)...

Epicurus was in a unique position in a newly-connected world, where ancient Hellenic peoples were being introduced to new forms of spirituality ... and they looked strikingly similar to the tones, attitudes, and topics to existing forms of ancient Greek religion. Likewise, our new world is connected by a network of servers that provide us the tools to compare and contrast everything from the beliefs of aboriginal Australians to Dharma ... I agree, there is a parallel in method.

I'd like to add my try at a translation to the pot:

We care for friends not by singing a song of grief but by listening thoughtfully.

I am struck by the contrast between making noise versus receiving it (openly).

Inwood & Gerson translate the following: "Let us share our friends’ suffering not with laments but with thoughtful concern." (The Epicurus Reader: Selected Writings and Testimonia)

Peter Saint-Andre provides a similar tone: "We sympathize with our friends not through lamentation but through thoughtful attention." [https://monadnock.net/epicurus/vatican-sayings.html]

According to Johns Hopkins [https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellnes…-gut-connection], there are "more than 100 million nerve cells lining your gastrointestinal tract from esophagus to rectum", which seems to be more robust than the brain of a golden hamster. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1567708/). The digestive tract seems to be only slightly dumber than a cat ... and that depends upon the cat ... and boy have I met some cats. The TED Talk reminded me of the proposition of a "second brain", which seems reasonable.

Quote from DavidN

The thing about the language models is that they're just a math equations with assigned linguistic assignments. So as they go along parcing out they're sentences the math side is looking for the most likely continuation of the sentence or paragraph. So what ever the model was trained on led it to believe that that was the most likely sequence of words. It was likely trained on a whole collection of philosophical works aswell as "the Pile". I had at one point considered doing the same thing, training an epicurean chat bot and seeing what it would output. But honestly I'm really disappointed with the reliability of the data coming out of the current models. From what I've seen it will be another 3-4 full evolutions of the tech before it's really reliable. Right now it's more like a parlor trick than a real tool.

I found the same thing. I thought it could be an effective research assistant, but it is unreliable, never up-to-date with the latest research, and it presents a huge opportunity to exploit confirmation bias by training it to answer selectively, so I am not impressed by ChatGPT.

Turn on [to philosophy], tune in [to the teachings of Epicurus], drop out [of the frenzied chorus].

This is great! I appreciate your going to the source of the VS. Two other translations for the sake of comparison:

- Anderson: "We should welcome praise from others if it comes unsought, but we should also be engaged in improving ourselves."

- Inwood & Gerson: "Praise from other men must come of its own accord; and we must be concerned with healing ourselves."