Quote from Cassius

Kalosyni's comment to the effect that a simple "atheist" perspective is not nearly sufficient as a full worldview. That's an important benefit that Epicurus can bring to people who know enough to reject supernatural religion, but who don't know where to go from there and think that Western philosophy offers them nothing.

I attended an atheist weekly "meetup" just a few times (before Covid hit) and it was mainly just socializing (but awkwardly) and drinking beer since the group met at a pub. Their activism was to have a banner hung in downtown Eugene at Christmastime, in competion with the Christians who hung up something like "Jesus is the reason for the season". The atheist banner was "Celebrate the Solstice" (if I remember correctly). It seemed that science and technology were common topics (not too much time actually talking about atheism).

At the very end of this podcast I said something about Epicureanism being halfway between atheism and agnostism, but I don't think that is really correct. It really is very different, and I think we need to keep talking about it until we get a better idea of the religious environment that Epicurus lived in (festivals were part of the social fabric of Greece), as compared to our current times of monotheism (our US money still says "In God We Trust"). We may be more free in some ways and less free in other ways. We hold a similar place as atheists, and yet we stand up for things (rather than just being anti-religious). In Epicureanism there are life-enhancing ideas worth sharing with others.

Cassius, at about 56:50, you say "There's nothing to fear about the absence of a supernatural god" -- which is a very interesting idea. Because I don't think it is said that way in Epicurean writings. If I remember correctly, it more about not fearing the gods (not fearing their wrath or punishment).

But I am glad you brought up this slightly different twist, because I think this type of fear which you mention is very valid. And I think that now in our current times there are many Christians that might feel too much fear at the thought that "God isn't protecting them from harm". The idea that God is not supernatural would be very disturbing (and very distasteful). So Christians may feel very disturbed by the Epicurean philosophical belief regarding the nature of god.

Martin that is so nice that they have such big bookcases with free books over there in Germany. I have seen something similar in Oregon, and now even in Georgia where I live, but they are always very small, often with the name "Little Free Library" (and here they often have mostly kids books).

Maybe the title of the EF forum thread should be something more open, like:

"User Book Reviews and Free Book Exchange"

Then also people can post if they really enjoyed a book, or if it is free on archive.com.

This article tells a little about what NDEs are and the study of this phenomenon. Very good help toward our Epicurean understanding that death is nothing to be feared.

"The Afterlife Is in Our Heads"

by Kristen French September 28, 2022

Excerpt:

Quote

“You don’t want to undermine the person’s lived experience,” Seth said. “If they experience flying through a tunnel of light, into a beautiful white open space, then that’s what they experience. But memories, things that minds do, like remember things and talk about them, depend on brain activity. No brain activity, no mental process. If somebody with no brain activity were able to experience something and remember it later, then pretty much everything we know about the brain, about science, about physics is wrong.”

While no single overarching explanation for the NDE has yet been established, neuroscientists have discovered a series of neurophysiological mechanisms that could, together, account for many aspects of the phenomenon. One hypothesis is that NDEs are produced by the release in the brain of a natural hallucinogen with neuroprotective properties.

Quote

Scientists haven’t assembled all the pieces to explain why brains in desperate throes generate feelings of peace and joy, ineffability, and the sense of being in the presence of something transcendent. “It’s always difficult for science to answer the big why questions,” Laureys said. Comas, of the Icloby Foundation, told me that by educating the public about near-death experiences, she and Melo hoped to “to eradicate the fear of death.” After all, she said, “The fear of death is the mother and father of all fears.” Who could argue with that? Scientific evidence says near-death experiences are directly linked to the workings of our brains. But evolution is a sly master. Perhaps our biology in its final hour is easing us gently into that good night.

The Afterlife Is in Our Heads

The real meaning of near-death experiences.

nautil.us

#death #near-death-experience

This next Wednesday evening is canceled due to the 20th meeting occuring on the following evening, so please join us if you can on Thursday evening for our monthly 20th Zoom Gathering -- for community conversation and philosophy discussion.

On the following week, Wednesday, October 26th, we will continue with discussion of all the PD's on justice (PD 31thru 38).

Quote from Cassius

So I guess I am saying I see the root of our attachment to life as being our love of it and our desire not to lose it. For this purpose I'm abstracting this life and any other life and giving them the benefit of the doubt that if someone loves "life" then they are open to seeing how short it is and how best to live it.

But for those who wish they had never been born or wish to cease to exist, and buy deeply into that argument, seems to me that's a much harder nut to crack.

I just posted about both getting help of a therapist and finding more meaning in life, in this thread:

Post

Overcome Suicidal Ideation and Find Greater Meaning in Life

Occassionally on this forum and on the podcasts the topic of suicide, and also chosing to end one's own life when terminally ill, etc. has come up. And I feel the need to bring up and share some "therapeutics".

Given that we believe that we only have this one life to live (no-rebirth, no second chance) this means that ending one's life is rarely ever chosen unless out of great necessity ( Cassius I know there are sources for this in Epicurean writings but can't remember off hand).

Ideally I…

Kalosyni

October 14, 2022 at 10:19 AM

Occassionally on this forum and on the podcasts the topic of suicide, and also chosing to end one's own life when terminally ill, etc. has come up. And I feel the need to bring up and share some "therapeutics".

Given that we believe that we only have this one life to live (no-rebirth, no second chance) this means that ending one's life is rarely ever chosen unless out of great necessity ( Cassius I know there are sources for this in Epicurean writings but can't remember off hand).

Ideally I would recommend someone should seek out the professional help of a therapist, to effectively remedy repeated or on going suicidal thoughts.

For those who may occassionally have milder moments of considering the meaning of life and only briefly encounter suicidal ideation, I would recommend this very good article, which also brings up good points to bring more meaning and fulfillment:

If You Wonder Why You Should Stay Alive, This Is for You

Why do we need to live life? There are many possible answers to that question, and here are 22 of them, together with an exercise to find your own reasons.

psychcentral.com

Quote from Don:

Quote

Starting around 1095b, Aristotle appears to stake his flag against pleasure as the Good:

“The common run of people and the most vulgar identify [the highest good] with pleasure, and for that reason are satisfied with a life of enjoyment…a life suitable to cattle.”

LOL! Oh, a life of enjoyment! Perish the thought!

He goes on to say that there are really three notable kinds of life:

• The life of enjoyment/pleasure
• The political life (remember, life in service to the polis)
• The contemplative life

Could we correctly say that Epicureanism actually combines:

a) a life of enjoyment/pleasure

-AND-

c) the contemplative life (contemplating the nature of things)

hygge according to Google search:

pasted-from-clipboard.png hyg·ge

/ˈh(y)o͞oɡə,ˈho͝oɡə/

noun

a quality of coziness and comfortable conviviality that engenders a feeling of contentment or well-being (regarded as a defining characteristic of Danish culture).

"why not follow the Danish example and bring more hygge into your daily life?"

Also, this book which I need to see if my library has it:

The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living (The Happiness Institute Series)

The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living (The Happiness Institute Series)

www.amazon.com

Hygge - Wikipedia

And seems like since fall is here and winter coming soon, a good time for hygge

Here is my latest blog post -- just some personal musings (and two links to further info) for anyone thinking about making improvements to one's own environs.

An Epicurean Exploration of Minimalism Leads to Hygge

I am not a minimalist, but I have read various articles on the internet about adopting minimalist tips. I can see that the benefits and pl...

epicureanphilosophyblog.blogspot.com

By the way Don, I didn't know either until I looked it up

Quote from Don

LOL! I didn't even know what "calumny" was!

---especially the synonyms: insults, slights, bad-mouthing (see synonyms below).

Was Phyrrho really an uneducated fool? (I will have to research that).

From Google, --the making of false and defamatory statements about someone in order to damage their reputation; slander.

"a bitter struggle marked by calumny and litigation"

synonyms: slander, defamation (of character), character assassination, misrepresentation of character, evil-speaking, calumniation, libel, scandalmongering, malicious gossip, muckraking, smear campaign, disparagement, denigration, derogation, aspersions, vilification, traducement, obloquy, verbal abuse, backbiting, vituperation, revilement, scurrility, lies, slurs, smears, untruths, false accusations, false reports, insults, slights, mudslinging, bad-mouthing, contumely

My stance regarding calumny is that I would want to believe that Epicurus would not have said what Diogenes Laertius wrote, because Epicurus focused on what the senses perceive. This means that any criticism would have been spoken in this way: X said "xyz" which is incorrect because of such and such Epicurean physics, etc. ---- or X is wearing his toga with red stains of the wine we saw him spill last night (this is just a hypothetical example of specific observations). So he would not have used abstract ideas which are vague categories which pigeon hole a person as forever having the same character (branding someone as a permanent cheat, etc.) and which would be very Aristotilian and much like something that Aristippus of Cyrene would have said.

On the other hand we can't know for sure about all this.

Quote from Cassius

I gather that you're saying that developing calumny into an "art" might not be a good idea, rather than that all calumny is a bad idea, since Epicurus himself was apparently regularly engaged in it!

I have a hard time believing that Epicurus would have said all that, because it doesn't fit with the Principle Doctrines. The source for all that is Diogenes Laertius, and what he wrote was what was said by Timocrates,

(the brother of Metrodorus, who was his disciple and then

left the school.)

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, BOOK X, EPICURUS (341-271 B.C.)

On the subject of the "art of calumny" -- I will simply say that it would not fit well with PD5:

"PD5: It is not possible to live joyously without also living wisely and beautifully and rightly, nor to live wisely and beautifully and rightly without living joyously; and whoever lacks this cannot live joyously."

Also, I found this very interesting painting:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calumny_o…les_(Botticelli)

and which has an interesting write up.

I feel the sense of "domination" of all of history, and the undercurrent of Christianity continues with the use of BC/AD. I would say we all need to stand up for freedom from religion by using neutral year signifiers. Unfortunately "HE" may be too big of a shift for many people, and of course Christians would not go for it at all. (although I can image that people of other faiths would support it).

And there at times seems to be little use of BCE and CE -- Wikipedia doesn't use it.

Quote

Style Guides on Religious Neutrality

The choice may be up to you and your style guide. The 17th edition of the "Chicago Manual of Style (published in 2017) suggests that the choice is up to the writer and should be flagged only if the customs of a specific field or community are being violated:

Quote

"Many authors use BC and AD because they are familiar and conventionally understood. Those who want to avoid reference to Christianity are free to do so."

In terms of secular journalism, the 2019 version of the Associated Press Stylebook uses B.C. and A.D. (using the periods); as does the fourth edition of the UPI Style Guide, published in 2004. The use of BC and BCE is commonly found in articles concerning academic and lay historical research—including ThoughtCo.com—but not exclusively.

Despite rumors to the contrary, the entire BBC has not dropped the use of AD/BC, but its Religion & Ethics department, which prides itself on providing religion-neutral stories, has:

Quote

"As the BBC is committed to impartiality, it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians. In line with modern practice, B.C.E./C.E. (Before Common Era/Common Era) are used as a religiously neutral alternative to B.C./A.D."

https://www.thoughtco.com/when-to-use-ad-or-ce-116687

(Anyway, just had to throw this in).

Don, looking forward to reading your notes on Nichomachean Ethics!

I saw this too, a different article, yesterday which said that a nose was broken off one (but don't remember what it said about the other one).

This article suggests that the person had a mental heallth problem and randomly grabbed one, and the second one fell while he was trying to escape the scene.

Seems like they should put them behind glass protectors, or they need to more securely mount them.

Thank you Titus for your feedback. I decided not to use "natural but unnecessary" category to see if I could create something very direct and usable. Something only becomes "unnecessary" if it causes much pain or trouble -- so the prediction of the end result determines the decision to say that something is "unnecessary".

And this also means that there is not any absolute labels of a specific activity. This means that if someone chooses to run for a political office, then their choice to do so is because it will bring them more pleasure than pain. (Perhaps it was much more dangerous back in Epicurus' time, compared to now.)